Interafaith: Comparative religion: world religions

Go Back   Interfaith forums > Secularism > Politics and Society

Politics and Society Current affairs, political and social theory

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old 09-02-2009, 07:14 PM   #211 (permalink)
Why do cows say mu?
 
seattlegal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Pacific Ring of Fire
Posts: 6,478
seattlegal is a glorious beacon of lightseattlegal is a glorious beacon of lightseattlegal is a glorious beacon of lightseattlegal is a glorious beacon of lightseattlegal is a glorious beacon of light
Re: Are there any feminists in this forum ??

Quote:
Originally Posted by Avi View Post
SG, I always am curious to ask my right wing friends, so how many guns do you own ???
I don't own any. I opted for several years of martial arts training, instead.
seattlegal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2009, 07:34 PM   #212 (permalink)
Avi
Interfaith Forums
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,399
Avi has a spectacular aura aboutAvi has a spectacular aura about
Re: Are there any feminists in this forum ??

Quote:
Originally Posted by seattlegal View Post
I don't own any. I opted for several years of martial arts training, instead.
That is because you are a feminist .

Most right wing libertarians that I know have a few guns at home !!
Avi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2009, 07:44 PM   #213 (permalink)
fluffy future
 
nativeastral's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: scotland
Posts: 1,525
nativeastral has a spectacular aura aboutnativeastral has a spectacular aura about
Re: Are there any feminists in this forum ??

back to feminism, from a site pathless put in another thread

Official Shrub.com Blog Blog Archive Think women have achieved equality? Think again.
nativeastral is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2009, 08:40 PM   #214 (permalink)
Executive Member
 
Netti-Netti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,571
Netti-Netti has a spectacular aura aboutNetti-Netti has a spectacular aura aboutNetti-Netti has a spectacular aura about
Re: Are there any feminists in this forum ??

Quote:
Originally Posted by seattlegal View Post
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.
To make sense of laws, it is sometimes helpful to (1) look at their legislative history and (2) look at how a law got amended at a later date. When a law is amended, this can obviously make a difference in how it is effectuated.

In light of the Fourteenth Amendment, which addresses a rather significant gap in the Tenth Amendment (allowing states to have slaves) one might reasonably conclude that the Tenth Amendment was not exactly complete in its original form and evidently needed some work. It obviously didn't cover all possible complexities relating to the limits of the federal government.

Unless I missed it, so far there has been no mention of the 14th Amendment. That being the case, the rendering of the Tenth Amendment so far has been incomplete. I don't know if it was intentional. Probably not. Anyway, just wanted to point out that present day Libertarians would probably not be prepared to argue that slavery should be allowed in deference to the original language of the Tenth Amendment, which was construed to protect the right have slaves. I also doubt they want another civil war.

As for legislative history, legislation usually arises from the need for a law that doesn't exist yet. Interestingly, the Tenth Amendment was apparently more symbolic than anything else because it dealt with something that was covered elsewhere in the Constitution.
The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment....

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/c...ment10/01.html

It seems the Tenth Amendment was neither uniquely important, nor was it intrinsically adequate, as indicated by the recognized need for the 14th Amendment.

To get a idea of what a law is supposed to do, we could look into what lawmakers were thinking when they drew up the law..... So what was going on that might have led the non-liberals to take measures to counteract the "liberals" who presumably didn't want the states to be in charge of matters within their own borders. Who were those liberals back then?
Netti-Netti is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2009, 03:53 AM   #215 (permalink)
Why do cows say mu?
 
seattlegal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Pacific Ring of Fire
Posts: 6,478
seattlegal is a glorious beacon of lightseattlegal is a glorious beacon of lightseattlegal is a glorious beacon of lightseattlegal is a glorious beacon of lightseattlegal is a glorious beacon of light
Re: Are there any feminists in this forum ??

Quote:
Originally Posted by Netti-Netti View Post
To make sense of laws, it is sometimes helpful to (1) look at their legislative history and (2) look at how a law got amended at a later date. When a law is amended, this can obviously make a difference in how it is effectuated.

In light of the Fourteenth Amendment, which addresses a rather significant gap in the Tenth Amendment (allowing states to have slaves) one might reasonably conclude that the Tenth Amendment was not exactly complete in its original form and evidently needed some work. It obviously didn't cover all possible complexities relating to the limits of the federal government.

Unless I missed it, so far there has been no mention of the 14th Amendment.
I did mention "equal protection under the law" in post 200 regarding Avi's question about the Ninth and Tenth Amendment.
Quote:
That being the case, the rendering of the Tenth Amendment so far has been incomplete. I don't know if it was intentional. Probably not. Anyway, just wanted to point out that present day Libertarians would probably not be prepared to argue that slavery should be allowed in deference to the original language of the Tenth Amendment, which was construed to protect the right have slaves. I also doubt they want another civil war.
Slavery would be incompatible with the libertarian idea of self ownership.

Quote:
As for legislative history, legislation usually arises from the need for a law that doesn't exist yet. Interestingly, the Tenth Amendment was apparently more symbolic than anything else because it dealt with something that was covered elsewhere in the Constitution.
The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment....

FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Tenth Amendment: Annotations pg. 1 of 2

It seems the Tenth Amendment was neither uniquely important, nor was it intrinsically adequate, as indicated by the recognized need for the 14th Amendment.
Well, yes. There have always been those who try to go against the spirit of the Constitution. There are many around even today.

Quote:
To get a idea of what a law is supposed to do, we could look into what lawmakers were thinking when they drew up the law..... So what was going on that might have led the non-liberals to take measures to counteract the "liberals" who presumably didn't want the states to be in charge of matters within their own borders.
When I mentioned the Ninth and Tenth Amendments as traditionally being useful in keeping conservatives and liberals in check, I meant in forming arguments from the libertarian standpoint to keep traditional conservatives and traditional liberals in check. Today, we can see that the "traditional model" of conservatives wanting to limit the rights of the people and liberals wanting to expand the powers of government no longer fits--we can see that both conservatives and liberals have been pushing to both expand government powers and limit the rights of the people. (That's why I like to use the terms Republicrats and Demicans so much.)
Quote:
Who were those liberals back then?
Whoever they were back then, they didn't show any evidence of being interested in feminism....
seattlegal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2009, 06:04 AM   #216 (permalink)
Why do cows say mu?
 
seattlegal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Pacific Ring of Fire
Posts: 6,478
seattlegal is a glorious beacon of lightseattlegal is a glorious beacon of lightseattlegal is a glorious beacon of lightseattlegal is a glorious beacon of lightseattlegal is a glorious beacon of light
Re: Are there any feminists in this forum ??

Quote:
Originally Posted by seattlegal View Post
I did mention "equal protection under the law" in post 200 regarding Avi's question about the Ninth and Tenth Amendment.
Slavery would be incompatible with the libertarian idea of self ownership.

Well, yes. There have always been those who try to go against the spirit of the Constitution. There are many around even today.

When I mentioned the Ninth and Tenth Amendments as traditionally being useful in keeping conservatives and liberals in check, I meant in forming arguments from the libertarian standpoint to keep traditional conservatives and traditional liberals in check. Today, we can see that the "traditional model" of conservatives wanting to limit the rights of the people and liberals wanting to expand the powers of government no longer fits--we can see that both conservatives and liberals have been pushing to both expand government powers and limit the rights of the people. (That's why I like to use the terms Republicrats and Demicans so much.)

Whoever they were back then, they didn't show any evidence of being interested in feminism....
I desire you would remember the Ladies, and be more generous and favourable to them than your ancestors. Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of the Husbands.

~Abigail Adams to her husband


seattlegal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2009, 06:40 AM   #217 (permalink)
Avi
Interfaith Forums
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,399
Avi has a spectacular aura aboutAvi has a spectacular aura about
Re: Are there any feminists in this forum ??

Quote:
Originally Posted by seattlegal View Post
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]

SG, it appears that you do not have a strong understanding of the earmark issue.

First, if we are overspending the Federal government by hundreds of billions we need to fix that problem.

It does not mean that we should spend hundreds of millions of dollars on wasteful earmarks.
Quote:
This is an absurd argument. As a libertarian you are against waste in govenment spending. If you could save hundreds of millions by cutting earmarks you should be in support of doing that.

Quote:
Now, please explain to me what is hypocritical about his position on earmarks?
Dr. Ron Paul is against earmarks, but takes them for his own constituents. This is the definition of hypocrisy. He says one thing and does another.
Avi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2009, 06:46 AM   #218 (permalink)
Avi
Interfaith Forums
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,399
Avi has a spectacular aura aboutAvi has a spectacular aura about
Re: Are there any feminists in this forum ??

Quote:
Originally Posted by seattlegal View Post
I don't own any. I opted for several years of martial arts training, instead.
SG, please provide your views on gun ownership by individual citizens:

1) Are you in favor of widespread handgun ownership ?

2) Machine gun ownership ?

3) Artillary guns ?

4) Autocannons ?

5) Tank guns ?

6) Suitcase nuclear bombs ?

7) Dirty bombs ?

Also, are you a member of the National Rifle Association ?
Avi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2009, 07:08 AM   #219 (permalink)
Why do cows say mu?
 
seattlegal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Pacific Ring of Fire
Posts: 6,478
seattlegal is a glorious beacon of lightseattlegal is a glorious beacon of lightseattlegal is a glorious beacon of lightseattlegal is a glorious beacon of lightseattlegal is a glorious beacon of light
Re: Are there any feminists in this forum ??

Quote:
Originally Posted by Avi View Post
SG, it appears that you do not have a strong understanding of the earmark issue.

First, if we are overspending the Federal government by hundreds of billions we need to fix that problem.

It does not mean that we should spend hundreds of millions of dollars on wasteful earmarks.
This is an absurd argument. As a libertarian you are against waste in govenment spending. If you could save hundreds of millions by cutting earmarks you should be in support of doing that.
Cutting earmarks won't do much to lower the outlandish spending by congress. They make up way too small of a percentage to even make a dent in the spending.



Quote:
Dr. Ron Paul is against earmarks, but takes them for his own constituents. This is the definition of hypocrisy. He says one thing and does another.
Show me where he said he was against earmarks.
seattlegal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2009, 07:18 AM   #220 (permalink)
Avi
Interfaith Forums
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,399
Avi has a spectacular aura aboutAvi has a spectacular aura about
Re: Are there any feminists in this forum ??

Quote:
Originally Posted by Netti-Netti View Post
Anyway, just wanted to point out that present day Libertarians would probably not be prepared to argue that slavery should be allowed in deference to the original language of the Tenth Amendment, which was construed to protect the right have slaves.
That is a very creative interpretation. I am not sure whether present day libertarians would be prepared to argue that slavery should be allowed. If it would balance the budget, they might go for it !!

Quote:
I also doubt they want another civil war.
Have you read Dr. Ron Paul's platform ?



Quote:
To get a idea of what a law is supposed to do, we could look into what lawmakers were thinking when they drew up the law..... So what was going on that might have led the non-liberals to take measures to counteract the "liberals" who presumably didn't want the states to be in charge of matters within their own borders. Who were those liberals back then?
Lincoln, Johnson, Grant and Hayes (all Republican Presidents ).
Avi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2009, 07:36 AM   #221 (permalink)
Avi
Interfaith Forums
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,399
Avi has a spectacular aura aboutAvi has a spectacular aura about
Re: Are there any feminists in this forum ??

Quote:
Originally Posted by seattlegal View Post
Show me where he said he was against earmarks.
Quote:
he routinely votes against most spending bills returned by committee.[25][69]
Why else would he vote against spending bills unless he is against earmarks..... unless of course they are his earmarks !!!

In that case:

Quote:
Paul adds his own earmarks, such as for Texas shrimp promotion
And the return of the oxymoron.....jumbo shrimp . (George Carlin, 1975).
Avi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2009, 07:45 AM   #222 (permalink)
Why do cows say mu?
 
seattlegal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Pacific Ring of Fire
Posts: 6,478
seattlegal is a glorious beacon of lightseattlegal is a glorious beacon of lightseattlegal is a glorious beacon of lightseattlegal is a glorious beacon of lightseattlegal is a glorious beacon of light
Re: Are there any feminists in this forum ??

Quote:
Originally Posted by Avi View Post
Why else would he vote against spending bills unless he is against earmarks..... unless of course they are his earmarks !!!
Another fallacious conclusion based upon assumption. Please re-read Dr Paul's statement regarding earmarks from the link you posted.
seattlegal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2009, 08:15 AM   #223 (permalink)
Executive Member
 
Nick the Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Harbin, China
Posts: 3,299
Nick the Pilot will become famous soon enough
Re: Are there any feminists in this forum ??

Hi everybody!

I was just watching a great movie about marriage and divorce called Scenes From a Marriage.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070644

In the discussion after the movie, the lady who played the part of the wife said that her husband in real life is a male chauvinist. She defined male chauvinist as someone who does not take care of other people (usually children), does not know how to care of other people, and does not like to care of other people. I thought that was a fascinating defintion.
Nick the Pilot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2009, 08:38 AM   #224 (permalink)
Say Meow.
 
immortalitylost's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: In my head. HELP! IM TRAPPED IN HERE!
Posts: 862
immortalitylost has a spectacular aura aboutimmortalitylost has a spectacular aura aboutimmortalitylost has a spectacular aura about
Re: Are there any feminists in this forum ??

Spending bills are not earmarks, Avi. Earmarks are a designation of funds within the spending bill to certain projects favorable to certain states by those states congressmen. There are earmarks within almost every spending bill. It's an allocation of the funds within a bill, to specific projects relevant to the area of funding for that bill.

This means instead of the money going to some federal agency, it will go to a specifically detailed project, and we will be able to see that it is going to that project.

Paul is all for transparency. So that is why he can vote against spending bills and not be against earmarks. Spending bills are vague monstrosities, most times utterly undefined except a general notion of the area the money is going towards.

Earmarks are a part of every appropriation of funds. They aren't all wasted money on stupid things. Maybe you should look at what the money is being allocated to, and whether or not it's wasteful in the case of his earmarks. That's the beauty of earmarks, you can see what the money goes to. It's not just poofed away to some federal agency. It actually does some real tangible good. Unless it's completely wasteful. But, to the best of my knowledge, Paul's aren't.

So he's not a hypocrite. And he's not against earmarks in general, just, I would imagine, the wasteful ones.
immortalitylost is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2009, 09:18 AM   #225 (permalink)
Say Meow.
 
immortalitylost's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: In my head. HELP! IM TRAPPED IN HERE!
Posts: 862
immortalitylost has a spectacular aura aboutimmortalitylost has a spectacular aura aboutimmortalitylost has a spectacular aura about
Re: Are there any feminists in this forum ??

Sorry Native, I missed this response before. My apologies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nativeastral View Post
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.
I'm not sure if you understand what free market means.

What your describing is happening now. We are not currently in a free market situation, like, at all. If companies want to work overseas because they can get cheaper raw materials, have an easier time with laws, and can get cheaper labor, that's all happening now. And what does that say about our market? That the businesses are fleeing? Obviously what's going on now isn't working. Companies aren't worried because they can just get bailouts. We buy goods made by slave labor anyway. In a free market we would have more purchasing power. We would be the demand to a companies supply, and we would decide their fates. Now, the government does, and everything is going tits up on us.

And the government is just in it for the money as well. Where do you think they get all of the money that they throw into their poorly run industries "for the people's benefit"? It comes out of your taxes. And People's taxes that are below the poverty line as well, making them even more dependant on the government's assistance. And the list keeps on growing of what is essential to our welfare. No. Government run programs will do more harm than good in a situation such as ours. We need to take back a little power. Purchasing power is a good place to start.
immortalitylost is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
the greatness of Gautam, why? Susma Rio Sep Buddhism 47 02-07-2007 12:06 AM
No Sikhism Forum ?? sikhphilosophy Sikhism 4 06-18-2004 01:16 PM
Alternative Forum set-up Avinash Feedback 8 06-18-2004 10:20 AM
forum upgrade soon brian Site News 0 07-06-2003 10:49 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:10 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0 ©2008, Crawlability, Inc.