Good news...
-
Oakman wrote:
Laissez-faire capitalism doesn't have any problems with the government enforcing laws, it simply rejects any form of regulation. As long as as a transaction takes place by mutual consent (some modernists want to make that consenting adults, but that's probably the first step on the slippery slope to socialism) the government has no interest in it other than to ensure that it was not forced.
And I have no problem with regulations - as long as their purpose is to promote the general welfare (protection of the environment, for example), and not to redistribute wealth.
Oakman wrote:
Careful, you're starting to talk like a libertarian.
I am as much a fiscal libertarian as you are, I'm simply not a social libertarian.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
am as much a fiscal libertarian as you are, I'm simply not a social libertarian.
No, of course not. Stamp out ideas at all costs. Burn some books, institute the anti-fairness doctrine on the media. . .Otherwise, people might think for themselves! :omg:
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
Oakman wrote:
Would you care to enlighten me as to which article says there can be no socialism?
The entire damned thing, and similarly the declaration of independence. The founders certainly thought they had created a government that disallowed any possibility of what would later become known as collectivism. "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." Madison. And Franklin Pierce best articulated subsequent generations' understanding of the document... "I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity. [To approve the measure] would be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded." "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." -- James Madison "I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground that 'all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states or to the people.' To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power not longer susceptible of any definition." -- Thomas Jefferson They created a government with intentionally limited authority.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
None of your quotes address whether socialism or capitalism will prevail, nor does the Constitution itself. Many of the quotes your found do, indeed, speak to the transfer of wealth by the government and on the whole, I agree with them. But you persist in confusing democracy and capitalism. Yet, to anyone whose mind is not totally blinded by ideology, it should be obvious that democracy, by definition, is simple a way-station on the road to socialism. Only the extremes of dictatorship and libertarianism can support capitalism for any length of time.
Stan Shannon wrote:
They created a government with intentionally limited authority.
Which has, since day one, gradually but inexorably drawn all power to itself. When Jefferson purchased the Louisianna Territory and the Feds decided how it would be parcelled out; when Lincoln refused to allow the South to leave the Union; when taxes were levied not on the States but on the people; when Senators were freed of their responsibility to the State governments; when the National Guard federalized the State Militias; When Roosevelt made owning gold a crime; when Eisenhower decided to build the Interstates; when Nixon repudiated Breton Woods - each and every one of these milestones increased the authority of the government. Most of them had nothing to do either with charity or socialism. They were simply and utterly about power.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
The end will be near when the credit rating on U.S. government debt is no longer AAA. Until that time, I remain unconcerned.
73Zeppelin wrote:
The end will be near when the credit rating on U.S. government debt is no longer AAA. Until that time, I remain unconcerned
Have you watched the yields on long-term debt climb recently? The yield on a 10-year Treasury note is up almost a full point. Sooner or later Moody's and S&P will admit what is already becoming evident to our creditors. The more money Obama prints, the less attractive our fixed-rate bonds become. The higher the yields go to offset their lack of appeal, the worse our debt-to-GDP ratio becomes. And, as near as I can tell, none of the people who are worrying about this live in Washington. (As I think about it, Moody's and S&P may be the last organizations to figure out that there's a problem with our Bonds - look how well they did with spotting tghe problem with bundled mortgages.)
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
You're saying that when Republicans were in power, they were powerless on this one issue ? Why ?
No, I said conservatives. The republicans are not a conservative party. They never have been.
Christian Graus wrote:
Well, that much is true. I still doubt it would happen tho. Localised revolution and a desire to move away from international ties seems more likely to me ( but still not very )
I did acknowledge that it was tin foil hat territory. But something very strange is going on. If Soros really did believe the economy was doomed, why the hell would he be promoting it? He might profit from economic downturns but he certainly would not profit from a complete collapse. I say it is to make Obama look all the better when things turn around. Soros has invested heavily in Obama, and I think he intends to get as much as he can out of that investment. I don't think it is at all impossible that everything of the last several years, from the collapse of the USSR, to 9/11 to the current financial meltdown are all connected and part of a conspiracy of somekind. And if your goal was some kind of global political system, what more perfect individual could you have backed than Barack Obama?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I don't think it is at all impossible that everything of the last several years, from the collapse of the USSR, to 9/11 to the current financial meltdown are all connected and part of a conspiracy of somekind.
The return of Matthew Faithful! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: p.s. You forgot the fall of the Shah and the Russians pulling out of Afghanistan.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
You're saying that when Republicans were in power, they were powerless on this one issue ? Why ?
No, I said conservatives. The republicans are not a conservative party. They never have been.
Christian Graus wrote:
Well, that much is true. I still doubt it would happen tho. Localised revolution and a desire to move away from international ties seems more likely to me ( but still not very )
I did acknowledge that it was tin foil hat territory. But something very strange is going on. If Soros really did believe the economy was doomed, why the hell would he be promoting it? He might profit from economic downturns but he certainly would not profit from a complete collapse. I say it is to make Obama look all the better when things turn around. Soros has invested heavily in Obama, and I think he intends to get as much as he can out of that investment. I don't think it is at all impossible that everything of the last several years, from the collapse of the USSR, to 9/11 to the current financial meltdown are all connected and part of a conspiracy of somekind. And if your goal was some kind of global political system, what more perfect individual could you have backed than Barack Obama?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
No, I said conservatives. The republicans are not a conservative party. They never have been.
Be that as it may, the Republicans don't have an interest in having a large influx of Democratic voters, so why haven't they done more to stop it? Answer: there are powerful economic forces at work promoting migration. The Democratic party is not the driving force at all.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I did acknowledge that it was tin foil hat territory. But something very strange is going on. If Soros really did believe the economy was doomed, why the hell would he be promoting it?
Why the hell would Paul Volcker be saying much the same thing? Maybe because he believes it is true? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/20/paul-volcker-financial-cr_n_168772.html[^]
John Carson
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
What I approve of is maximizing the opportunity for those things that can function outside the direct control of government, democratic or otherwise, to do so.
What a wuss. Commit to something, Stan. You want lezzie faire or you don't. None of this "maximising the opportunity." You sound like Barney Frank, for pete's sake.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
We will have one socialistic government, or we will have no government of any kind. Thats the deal
But, Monte, what's behind door number three?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
Oakman wrote:
But, Monte, what's behind door number three?
They are making soylent green in there. :omg:
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
I don't think it is at all impossible that everything of the last several years, from the collapse of the USSR, to 9/11 to the current financial meltdown are all connected and part of a conspiracy of somekind.
The return of Matthew Faithful! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: p.s. You forgot the fall of the Shah and the Russians pulling out of Afghanistan.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
Oakman wrote:
The return of Matthew Faithful!
Except, again, I acknowledge the paranoia inherent in such arguments. Its just that, being paranoid isn't always the same thing as being wrong.
Oakman wrote:
p.s. You forgot the fall of the Shah and the Russians pulling out of Afghanistan.
I would think those are connected. For example, at the very least, I think it is not at all unlikely that a bin Ladin/KGB connection exists and that 9/11 was pay back for Afganistan by the Russians more than anything else.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
No, I said conservatives. The republicans are not a conservative party. They never have been.
Be that as it may, the Republicans don't have an interest in having a large influx of Democratic voters, so why haven't they done more to stop it? Answer: there are powerful economic forces at work promoting migration. The Democratic party is not the driving force at all.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I did acknowledge that it was tin foil hat territory. But something very strange is going on. If Soros really did believe the economy was doomed, why the hell would he be promoting it?
Why the hell would Paul Volcker be saying much the same thing? Maybe because he believes it is true? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/20/paul-volcker-financial-cr_n_168772.html[^]
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
Be that as it may, the Republicans don't have an interest in having a large influx of Democratic voters, so why haven't they done more to stop it? Answer: there are powerful economic forces at work promoting migration.
I agree with that. That is why I said conservatives are frustrated by having no affective political representation on the subject. The republicans are the party of business, as such their principles largely overlap with those of conservatives, but not always.
John Carson wrote:
The Democratic party is not the driving force at all.
I disagree with that. If the democrats, as a party, still loved their country as much as they do power, they could put a stop to it quite easily. Conservatives would happily unite with them on that issue in a true bipartisan effort. We simply are no longer a constiuency they have any interest in appeasing.
John Carson wrote:
Why the hell would Paul Volcker be saying much the same thing? Maybe because he believes it is true?
And maybe it is. I don't deny that. But I will only believe that when I actually see it all fail. If there is some kind of sudden turn around, I'm simply never going to believe that the entire thing wasn't a scam from the beginning.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
modified on Sunday, February 22, 2009 7:48 AM
-
None of your quotes address whether socialism or capitalism will prevail, nor does the Constitution itself. Many of the quotes your found do, indeed, speak to the transfer of wealth by the government and on the whole, I agree with them. But you persist in confusing democracy and capitalism. Yet, to anyone whose mind is not totally blinded by ideology, it should be obvious that democracy, by definition, is simple a way-station on the road to socialism. Only the extremes of dictatorship and libertarianism can support capitalism for any length of time.
Stan Shannon wrote:
They created a government with intentionally limited authority.
Which has, since day one, gradually but inexorably drawn all power to itself. When Jefferson purchased the Louisianna Territory and the Feds decided how it would be parcelled out; when Lincoln refused to allow the South to leave the Union; when taxes were levied not on the States but on the people; when Senators were freed of their responsibility to the State governments; when the National Guard federalized the State Militias; When Roosevelt made owning gold a crime; when Eisenhower decided to build the Interstates; when Nixon repudiated Breton Woods - each and every one of these milestones increased the authority of the government. Most of them had nothing to do either with charity or socialism. They were simply and utterly about power.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
Oakman wrote:
None of your quotes address whether socialism or capitalism will prevail, nor does the Constitution itself. Many of the quotes your found do, indeed, speak to the transfer of wealth by the government and on the whole, I agree with them. But you persist in confusing democracy and capitalism. Yet, to anyone whose mind is not totally blinded by ideology, it should be obvious that democracy, by definition, is simple a way-station on the road to socialism. Only the extremes of dictatorship and libertarianism can support capitalism for any length of time.
What the entire document makes clear, is that the founders, and the first several generations of Americans, at the very least, were opposed to the underlieing justification for socialism. There is no hint of any kind that they were opposed to the tenants of free market capitalism. Obviously, the constitution does not represent a ratification of capitalism, but it does represent an overt rejection of colletivism and central planning.
Oakman wrote:
Which has, since day one, gradually but inexorably drawn all power to itself. When Jefferson purchased the Louisianna Territory and the Feds decided how it would be parcelled out; when Lincoln refused to allow the South to leave the Union; when taxes were levied not on the States but on the people; when Senators were freed of their responsibility to the State governments; when the National Guard federalized the State Militias; When Roosevelt made owning gold a crime; when Eisenhower decided to build the Interstates; when Nixon repudiated Breton Woods - each and every one of these milestones increased the authority of the government. Most of them had nothing to do either with charity or socialism. They were simply and utterly about power.
I've never denied any of that. In fact, you left out the biggest ones - the IRS,Social Security, etc. My point is that it all remains inherently unconstitutioal given our founding principles. If change is something to believe in, why is a simple re-acknowledgment of those original principles such profoundly unacceptable change? We could wipe all of that away with a few appropriate judicial decisions. But, the only possible way that is going to happen, to run the experiment again with a knowledge of all the mistakes made, is to let everything collpase entirely and start over.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
am as much a fiscal libertarian as you are, I'm simply not a social libertarian.
No, of course not. Stamp out ideas at all costs. Burn some books, institute the anti-fairness doctrine on the media. . .Otherwise, people might think for themselves! :omg:
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
Oakman wrote:
Stamp out ideas at all costs. Burn some books, institute the anti-fairness doctrine on the media. . .Otherwise, people might think for themselves!
What is the point of people thinking for themselves if they are denied the political power to actually implement their own principles as law in their own communities? You are the one who would deny them that, not me. In your world, the only people who get to do any thinking for themselves are the all wise and knowing Judges.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
You want lezzie faire or you don't.
No, I don't.
Oakman wrote:
None of this "maximising the opportunity."
It is important to keep things separate from the state, to keep as much responsibility as possible out of the hands of the state and in the hands of the people. Free market capitalism is one means of doing that, as is the christian religion. Obviously the governmetn must maintain some degree of control of the legal system which binds us all. So there can be no absolute dividing line. We need the state to maintain a system of common laws, and national defense, but for much of anything else. Somehow I don't think Barney would agree with any of that.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
It is important to keep things separate from the state, to keep as much responsibility as possible out of the hands of the state and in the hands of the people
In a democracy the state is the people, and the people are the state.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Free market capitalism is one means of doing that, as is the christian religion.
You are not supposed to call it the christian religion if it has no connection with the teachings of Christ. The Christian Left[^] thinks you guys have hijacked their religion. BTW, there are many atheists who are followers of the secular Christ, i.e. they disregard the theology and follow Him as a social reformer. Karl Marx was probably one of them ;P
-
Oakman wrote:
Stamp out ideas at all costs. Burn some books, institute the anti-fairness doctrine on the media. . .Otherwise, people might think for themselves!
What is the point of people thinking for themselves if they are denied the political power to actually implement their own principles as law in their own communities? You are the one who would deny them that, not me. In your world, the only people who get to do any thinking for themselves are the all wise and knowing Judges.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Can't imagine that Obama will be the New Stalin in "Uncle Sam's" clothes. So I suspect free speech will not be denied to you. As far as judges are concerned, speaking from a British point of view, they interpret law where a previous interpretation either has not occurred or where such a previous interpretation exists is in some aspect deemed wrongful. However, where a statute is deficient in a particular aspect then High Court judges can and do create law. But in terms of law creation, this will at some time be reviewed either by "The Law Lords" or by Parliament. One of the primary reasons for High Court judges creating law or interpreting law is because the statute is poorly worded or poorly constructed or suffers from vagueness. Judges are not "All wise and Knowing". They have to function within a narrow viewpoint.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
It is important to keep things separate from the state, to keep as much responsibility as possible out of the hands of the state and in the hands of the people
In a democracy the state is the people, and the people are the state.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Free market capitalism is one means of doing that, as is the christian religion.
You are not supposed to call it the christian religion if it has no connection with the teachings of Christ. The Christian Left[^] thinks you guys have hijacked their religion. BTW, there are many atheists who are followers of the secular Christ, i.e. they disregard the theology and follow Him as a social reformer. Karl Marx was probably one of them ;P
Otto von Drunkencoder wrote:
In a democracy the state is the people, and the people are the state.
That is precisely why we are not a democracy.
Otto von Drunkencoder wrote:
You are not supposed to call it the christian religion if it has no connection with the teachings of Christ. The Christian Left[^] thinks you guys have hijacked their religion.
So your interpretation is the only valid interpretation of the teachings of christ? Did God tell you that?
Otto von Drunkencoder wrote:
BTW, there are many atheists who are followers of the secular Christ, i.e. they disregard the theology and follow Him as a social reformer. Karl Marx was probably one of them
That is altogether obvious. In fact, liberalism is little else aside from christianity minus God. That is what makes the entire 'separation of church and state' argument so entirely moot. To the left, Government is religion. It is how they promote their own moral agenda. But that is entirely the opposite of the imporatance of true Christianity. True chrisitanity is not of this world, but of the next. It has no need for government in any way. That is precisely why it fits so comfortably into the context of Jeffersonian democracy. Few other religions would.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
modified on Sunday, February 22, 2009 8:59 AM
-
Can't imagine that Obama will be the New Stalin in "Uncle Sam's" clothes. So I suspect free speech will not be denied to you. As far as judges are concerned, speaking from a British point of view, they interpret law where a previous interpretation either has not occurred or where such a previous interpretation exists is in some aspect deemed wrongful. However, where a statute is deficient in a particular aspect then High Court judges can and do create law. But in terms of law creation, this will at some time be reviewed either by "The Law Lords" or by Parliament. One of the primary reasons for High Court judges creating law or interpreting law is because the statute is poorly worded or poorly constructed or suffers from vagueness. Judges are not "All wise and Knowing". They have to function within a narrow viewpoint.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Can't imagine that Obama will be the New Stalin in "Uncle Sam's" clothes. So I suspect free speech will not be denied to you.
Effective free speech (meaning free speech that actually carries meangingful political importance) has been denied to Americans for many decades now. I don't blame Obama for that, but he will certainly accelerate that unfortunant precedent.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
As far as judges are concerned, speaking from a British point of view, they interpret law where a previous interpretation either has not occurred or where such a previous interpretation exists is in some aspect deemed wrongful. However, where a statute is deficient in a particular aspect then High Court judges can and do create law. But in terms of law creation, this will at some time be reviewed either by "The Law Lords" or by Parliament. One of the primary reasons for High Court judges creating law or interpreting law is because the statute is poorly worded or poorly constructed or suffers from vagueness. Judges are not "All wise and Knowing". They have to function within a narrow viewpoint.
Judges indeed exist to interpret the law. But when the highest laws of the land are clearly defined yet blatantly ignored by the courts for the express purpose of ripping control of society out of the hands of the people, than there is most certainly a problem. The courts should be considered no more above the law than any other branch of government.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Otto von Drunkencoder wrote:
In a democracy the state is the people, and the people are the state.
That is precisely why we are not a democracy.
Otto von Drunkencoder wrote:
You are not supposed to call it the christian religion if it has no connection with the teachings of Christ. The Christian Left[^] thinks you guys have hijacked their religion.
So your interpretation is the only valid interpretation of the teachings of christ? Did God tell you that?
Otto von Drunkencoder wrote:
BTW, there are many atheists who are followers of the secular Christ, i.e. they disregard the theology and follow Him as a social reformer. Karl Marx was probably one of them
That is altogether obvious. In fact, liberalism is little else aside from christianity minus God. That is what makes the entire 'separation of church and state' argument so entirely moot. To the left, Government is religion. It is how they promote their own moral agenda. But that is entirely the opposite of the imporatance of true Christianity. True chrisitanity is not of this world, but of the next. It has no need for government in any way. That is precisely why it fits so comfortably into the context of Jeffersonian democracy. Few other religions would.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
modified on Sunday, February 22, 2009 8:59 AM
Stan Shannon wrote:
In fact, liberalism is little else aside from christianity minus God... True chrisitanity is not of this world.
So you waiting to go to the other world to do good deeds?? You want the will of Satan to prevail on this earth ? That's so lame X|
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Can't imagine that Obama will be the New Stalin in "Uncle Sam's" clothes. So I suspect free speech will not be denied to you.
Effective free speech (meaning free speech that actually carries meangingful political importance) has been denied to Americans for many decades now. I don't blame Obama for that, but he will certainly accelerate that unfortunant precedent.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
As far as judges are concerned, speaking from a British point of view, they interpret law where a previous interpretation either has not occurred or where such a previous interpretation exists is in some aspect deemed wrongful. However, where a statute is deficient in a particular aspect then High Court judges can and do create law. But in terms of law creation, this will at some time be reviewed either by "The Law Lords" or by Parliament. One of the primary reasons for High Court judges creating law or interpreting law is because the statute is poorly worded or poorly constructed or suffers from vagueness. Judges are not "All wise and Knowing". They have to function within a narrow viewpoint.
Judges indeed exist to interpret the law. But when the highest laws of the land are clearly defined yet blatantly ignored by the courts for the express purpose of ripping control of society out of the hands of the people, than there is most certainly a problem. The courts should be considered no more above the law than any other branch of government.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
I find that you comments regarding "effective free speech" hard to accept. That free speech you think has been denied to you, does its history have something to do with the Communist Witch Hunt of the 1950's or is from an earlier era than that, or what? You would have thought that if the judges are violating their responsibilities that actions would have been taken to confine their activities to that which is within their sphere of relevance. Unless it is you who find their activities unacceptable where others find their activities as within functional boundaries.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
In fact, liberalism is little else aside from christianity minus God... True chrisitanity is not of this world.
So you waiting to go to the other world to do good deeds?? You want the will of Satan to prevail on this earth ? That's so lame X|
"My kingdom doesn't belong to this world. If my kingdom belonged to this world, my followers would fight to keep me from being handed over to the Jews. My kingdom doesn't have its origin on earth."
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
I find that you comments regarding "effective free speech" hard to accept. That free speech you think has been denied to you, does its history have something to do with the Communist Witch Hunt of the 1950's or is from an earlier era than that, or what? You would have thought that if the judges are violating their responsibilities that actions would have been taken to confine their activities to that which is within their sphere of relevance. Unless it is you who find their activities unacceptable where others find their activities as within functional boundaries.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
I find that you comments regarding "effective free speech" hard to accept. That free speech you think has been denied to you, does its history have something to do with the Communist Witch Hunt of the 1950's or is from an earlier era than that, or what?
The congressional inquiries into communist infiltration of our social institutions was entirely justified and did not represent a violation of anyone's rights in any way. Congress is supposed to do those kind of things. Thats what they are there for. Thats their proper constitutional role. The example I typically use is the flag burning issue. Anti-flag burning laws represent effective free speech. That is, someone in some community says "Hey, I think we need to protect the flag, the symbol of our country". Someone else says "I second that!" And it becomes a law in their little town. That is entirely constitutional. When the courts said "No, flag burning is a form of free speech", they effectively invalidated free speech. We have less freedom of speech now because of that decision than we had before. Can I burn a flag? Absolutely. But that is a meaningless act and not protected by anything actually in the constitution itself. I no longer have the power, as my ancestors had, to participate in the determination as to how the flag will be treated in my community.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
You would have thought that if the judges are violating their responsibilities that actions would have been taken to confine their activities to that which is within their sphere of relevance. Unless it is you who find their activities unacceptable where others find their activities as within functional boundaries.
Point taken. I've never actually said that the decisions of the courts are not valid in the sense that they are acceptable to most Americans. But the truth of the matter remains that throughout most of American history, such decisions were not made. It is a recent phenomenon that would have been appalling to most previous generations of Americans.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
"My kingdom doesn't belong to this world. If my kingdom belonged to this world, my followers would fight to keep me from being handed over to the Jews. My kingdom doesn't have its origin on earth."
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
"My kingdom doesn't belong to this world. If my kingdom belonged to this world, my followers would fight to keep me from being handed over to the Jews. My kingdom doesn't have its origin on earth."
Yeah,yeah. Remember the parable of the lost sheep and the rest of the things He said. You will be judged in the other world by your actions in this one. You go around trashing most of His teachings and subverting the essence of His message, and all of this knowingly, and not out of ignorance. You expect Him to be pleased when you report for your final assessment??? Guys like me will probably get a "satisfactory, but could have done better" and be given a harp and nice 8 cylinder cloud to travel around in :cool: But, you !!! You are in biiig trouble buddy! He is going to be sooooooo pissed with you, He will probably put you in the same cell as Ilion and Adnan X|