Are there any feminists in this forum ?? - Page 14

seattlegal · 09-02-2009, 06:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avi

The Constitution has 27 amendments, which of the other 25 do libertarians not believe in ??

What in the heck are you talking about?

Avi · 09-02-2009, 07:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Perhaps this might help: libertarians believe in both the Ninth Amendment and the Tenth Amendment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avi

The Constitution has 27 amendments, which of the other 25 do libertarians not believe in ??

If libertarians believe in both the Ninth and Tenth Amendment, what is their position on the other 25 amendments ? Do they believe in them as well ? Do they not believe in them ? Do they not know there are 25 other amendments ?

seattlegal · 09-02-2009, 07:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avi

You did not misunderstand, Netti. Lets take a look at some of the ideas of "conservative libertarianism":

This sounds familiar.

Whatever. Not my beliefs.

Quote:

By the way, SG, what are your thoughts about "elimination of the state", illegal immigration, and state property ?

I'm not an anarchist, and do not believe in the elimination of the State.
Yes, the State can hold property.
Illegal immigration--there should be some sort of check on immigration, if it's only to screen people for criminal records that involve violating other's rights. (Violent criminals and such.)

Quote:

SG, any ideas about Iraq and Afganistan ?

Different from the ones listed here.

Quote:

There is our libertarian sweet heart again, Dr. Ron Paul. And he is followed, as usual, by confusion and contradiction.

Whatever.

Quote:

These are not my quotes, SG, and I have provided the references. I will be glad to discuss those references in more detail if you disagree.

Methinks this wiki article could use some reworking...

seattlegal · 09-02-2009, 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avi

Still reviewing Paul's positions, it looks like he was on the right (meaning correct) side with respect to Iraq.

I'm glad you are actually looking into Dr. Paul's position.

seattlegal · 09-02-2009, 07:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avi

If libertarians believe in both the Ninth and Tenth Amendment, what is their position on the other 25 amendments ? Do they believe in them as well ? Do they not believe in them ? Do they not know there are 25 other amendments ?

Yes, Avi, libertarians believe in all the Constitutional Amendments. Including the right to own guns, the freedom of religion and the press, and equal protection under the law.

immortalitylost · 09-02-2009, 08:13 AM

Avi, he voted no because Bush didn't go through congress, and got us into an unnecessary, preemptive war on naught but his own authority.

Lol, and about that quote from earlier, lol, about Dr. Paul. The constitution is all about checking government power, particularly of the federal government. Why do you think those in power have been trying so very hard to get around it for so long? Do you really think that the government could be so very powerful today if it took seriously and abided by our constitution?

Frankly I find it disturbing that so many think the constitution little more than a quaint and old fashioned piece of history nowadays. Why shouldn't we take it seriously? Why should someone be criticized for trying to put it back in the proper light and context?

Now, as for free market, NA, you said yourself that whoever would want to control the market would be in it for power, and in turn, grow more powerful. Do you believe the federal government to be exempt from this? Are they not the most powerful force in the industries that they have taken over management of?

Privatizing, and a having a free market, doesn't mean that huge companies would be in control of all any more than we let them. We control, as a nation of individuals, where we put our money. Who we buy from, where we buy what. The companies would then be reliant on us, because if someone came along that provided better cheaper service, they would fall. They wouldn't have any government bailouts to keep them big and fat while they continued to provide goods that the customer obviously wasn't buying. They would be forced to downgrade. New competitors would spring up. Businesses, unless they provided top notch goods and service, at a good price, would be taken down a notch. The size of businesses in general would likely even out.

No more government propping up of businesses that we no longer want. Think of it. Would it really be that bad? We would decide the products we wanted to buy and the companies we wanted to buy from, and it would actually mean something. Wouldn't that be nice for a change?

Now if we could only get to where our dollar was worth more than the paper it's printed on. If we could get it to be worth a set amount again, without the government holding all the real fortune as collateral in federal banks while handing out monopoly money. That'd be nice... bye bye inflation...

The thing that urks me the most about the power of the federal government is the effect that it's having on schools. The federal taxes take away money that the state could use, and then they offer to give it back if only schools do exactly as they say. That way they have control over that too. And they're doing such a fine job of running it.

And I have no tie in to feminism... Poo, I thought I'd think of one by now...

Oh well, carry on...

seattlegal · 09-02-2009, 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by immortalitylost

Lol, and about that quote from earlier, lol, about Dr. Paul. The constitution is all about checking government power, particularly of the federal government. Why do you think those in power have been trying so very hard to get around it for so long? Do you really think that the government could be so very powerful today if it took seriously and abided by our constitution?

Frankly I find it disturbing that so many think the constitution little more than a quaint and old fashioned piece of history nowadays. Why shouldn't we take it seriously? Why should someone be criticized for trying to put it back in the proper light and context?

That's why the Ninth and Tenth Amendments are so important. Traditionally, the Ninth Amendment was applied to keep the conservatives in check:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

...and the Tenth Amendment was traditionally applied to keep liberals in check:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

However, that is not the case anymore. The Republicrats/Demicans have taken to brazenly stomping on both.

immortalitylost · 09-02-2009, 10:25 AM

Yeah, I think it's like a requirement now if your trying to be a politician in either of the two major parties, to play "the game" as it's so aptly called, they need to learn the constitution by heart so that they may use all of the loopholes that they can make in it.

I can't see how our government has gotten to the point it's at now without that being the case. It's not that the constitution was badly written, it's just that people who want more power have had a while to find new ways to get around it, all while seeming to follow it. A text can be interpreted to fit one's needs after all. Words can almost always be abused and twisted. It's pretty sad...

nativeastral · 09-02-2009, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by immortalitylost

Now, as for free market, NA, you said yourself that whoever would want to control the market would be in it for power, and in turn, grow more powerful. Do you believe the federal government to be exempt from this? Are they not the most powerful force in the industries that they have taken over management of?

Privatizing, and a having a free market, doesn't mean that huge companies would be in control of all any more than we let them. We control, as a nation of individuals, where we put our money. Who we buy from, where we buy what. The companies would then be reliant on us, because if someone came along that provided better cheaper service, they would fall. They wouldn't have any government bailouts to keep them big and fat while they continued to provide goods that the customer obviously wasn't buying. They would be forced to downgrade. New competitors would spring up. Businesses, unless they provided top notch goods and service, at a good price, would be taken down a notch. The size of businesses in general would likely even out.

No more government propping up of businesses that we no longer want. Think of it. Would it really be that bad? We would decide the products we wanted to buy and the companies we wanted to buy from, and it would actually mean something. Wouldn't that be nice for a change?

No not if it means buying GAP clothes made elsewhere supporting slave labour; our car industry got propped up too as some industries are considered nationally essential but these too will fall by the wayside if monies are not used intelligently to streamline upgrade and maintain, much like our steel industry ended up on the scrap heap. Unfortunately in a free market companies do take over others hence the situation we are in with only wal-mart or tesco on the scene and huge corporations influencing the 'free' market. What l meant was that governments aka 'publically owned' should be in charge of trains buses hospitals etc - everything that societies need to 'run' efficiently without 'profit' perse, ie for the public good.

The problem is we are all buying imported goods more than home grown due to cost and choice. There was an italian from england who wanted to set up a restaurant in italy using british meat but he wasn't allowed; we may have to take such steps ourselves, not just for economic sake but sensibly for health sakes too.

l think capitalism and the free market economy is a monster out of control; ok communism didn't work in the USSR but there could be an amalgamation that would work better in this day and age.

Avi · 09-02-2009, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seattlegal

I'm glad you are actually looking into Dr. Paul's position.

Yes, SG, I am looking into Paul's positions, and I am finding some concerning facts:

Quote:

Paul adds his own earmarks, such as for Texas shrimp promotion, but he routinely votes against most spending bills returned by committee.[25][69] Earmarks permit members of Congress, rather than executive branch civil servants, to designate spending priorities[70] for previously authorized funds directed otherwise.[69] Paul compared his practice to objecting to the tax system yet taking all one's tax credits: "I want to get their money back for the people."[71

Ron Paul - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

His position on earmarks is rather hypocritical, he is against them, but gets them for his own constituents !!

What happened to personal ethical behavior ??

Snoopy · 09-02-2009, 05:42 PM

Re the OP; what about this man? -

"Woman is by nature meant to obey"

+

"Marrying means to halve one's rights and double one's duties"

+

"Marrying means, to grasp blindfold into a sack hoping to find out an eel out of an assembly of snakes"

s.

seattlegal · 09-02-2009, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avi

Yes, SG, I am looking into Paul's positions, and I am finding some concerning facts:

His position on earmarks is rather hypocritical, he is against them, but gets them for his own constituents !!

What happened to personal ethical behavior ??

(I'm surprised at that!)

Plug in your favorite congresscritter and find out how many earmarks they have requested!

Avi · 09-02-2009, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snoopy

Re the OP; what about this man? -

"Woman is by nature meant to obey"

s.

Hey, there, err, Snoop, your conservative libertarian side is showing

!!

seattlegal · 09-02-2009, 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avi

Yes, SG, I am looking into Paul's positions, and I am finding some concerning facts:

His position on earmarks is rather hypocritical, he is against them, but gets them for his own constituents !!

What happened to personal ethical behavior ??

Continuing from the wiki article you quoted:

Paul adds his own earmarks, such as for Texas shrimp promotion, but he routinely votes against most spending bills returned by committee.[25][69] Earmarks permit members of Congress, rather than executive branch civil servants, to designate spending priorities[70] for previously authorized funds directed otherwise.[69] Paul compared his practice to objecting to the tax system yet taking all one's tax credits: "I want to get their money back for the people."[71] In The Revolution: A Manifesto, Paul states his views on earmarks this way: "The real problem, and one that was unfortunately not addressed in the 2007's earmark dispute, is the size of the federal government and the amount of money we are spending in these appropriations bills. Cutting even a million dollars from an appropriations bill that spends hundreds of billions will make no appreciable difference in the size of government, which is doubtless why politicians and the media are so eager to have us waste our time on [earmarks]."[72]

Also from wiki:

In United States politics an earmark is a congressional provision that directs approved funds to be spent on specific projects or that directs specific exemptions from taxes or mandated fees. Earmarks do not create new government spending, but allocate existing spending for specific purposes. The term "earmark" is used in this sense only in the United States, and it is not recognized as a noun by major dictionaries (such as the OED and Merriam-Webster).

Now, please explain to me what is hypocritical about his position on earmarks?

Avi · 09-02-2009, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Yes, Avi, libertarians believe in all the Constitutional Amendments. Including the right to own guns, the freedom of religion and the press, and equal protection under the law.

SG, I always am curious to ask my right wing friends, so how many guns do you own ???