|
Best Porn Sites | Live Sex | Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar |
Politics, Current Affairs, Religion Threads Post here for all Politics, Current Affairs, Religion Threads |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
July 12th, 2017, 01:14 PM | #91 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Oakland, California, United States. I have a beautful view of the BART tracks and I-980
Posts: 8,955
Thanks: 103,061
Thanked 151,624 Times in 8,946 Posts
|
We are not disagreeing at all. In fact we are in agreement that the Federal Government cannot be counted on to maintain our basic freedoms. However, it is my opinion that the government has been co-opted by the multi-national corporations (just as Adam Smith predicted), which are undemocratic and anti-humanistic structures in and of themselves. What is more alarming from my point of view as a U.S. citizen is that the multinationals that are dominating our economy are less and less U.S. Corporations.
Two points where we disagree is that I believe that the Supreme Court has ordinarily failed to protect the rights of the common people and interpreted the laws in favor of the corporate interests. I do not see how anyone examining the opinions of Alioto, Gorsuch, and Thomas nowadays, and a whole series of rulings running from the 19th Century until the mid-20th can argue otherwise. Given the dominance of corporations, I think it is naive to argue for limited government. Some entity needs to be powerful enough to offset and contain corporate power. Given that national governments tend to become instruments of oppression in controlled by the forces of wealth and privilege, it is my opinion that an international government will be necessary to create a balanced power dynamic. Most likely, that government will also be co-opted, but it is my opinion that the whole Libertarian agenda is just as naive as their Anarchist brothers on the left. All of these arguments have every indication of not mattering much as humanity continues to add energy to the dynamic of our ongoing sixth mass extinction event. P.S. Robert Morris's slide into bankruptcy and disgrace was really rather tragic given the enormous contribution he made to the Patriot's cause. Only a few of the Constitutional delegates slid into criminal behavior, but that really is a tangent to the whole nation creating enterprise. |
July 12th, 2017, 01:55 PM | #92 | |||||||||
Vintage Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Skype:profvolup@yahoo.com GChat:profv475@gmail.com Discor:profv475#5888
Posts: 1,098
Thanks: 8,360
Thanked 17,839 Times in 1,081 Posts
|
Quote:
Quote:
We must remain educated to remain free. Americans don't know their civics. Quote:
The US Supreme Court has been slowing some down, but has screwed up in other cases. And it is not just the 2 Justices you mentioned! Quote:
Yes, I take great issue with them at times. But they've also gone against the left-leaning Justices on Eminent Domain too! Anyone who reads the actual rulings knows this. Those who listen to the US media do not. Quote:
This 'limited government' argument and 'anarchy' comment about us Libertarians is based on the left and right-wing defining such. The problem? The US gov't no longer 'regulates' ... it 'controls'!!! That's the key point! We Libertarians would like to just get back to 'regulation.' There is more direct US gov't control right now than in the UK or even France. It's scary! Until people stop spewing that shallow, US media rhetoric that we Libertarians are against 'regulation' and for 'anarchy', it will continue. The Obama administration pretty much proved that the bigger government gets, the more the mega-corporations control things. Hillary was going to be worse. And Trump is just proving he cannot stop it either, and is utterly just another 'fool in the chain.' Quote:
If the Soviet taught us anything, it's that the farther away, the less accountable. Centralization is the problem. State and, best of all, local is what balances. The US gov't was designed to protect civil rights and provide for the common defense ... not provide everything. But in the last 50 years, this has changed. 2 generations have grown up believing the US gov't knows best. They are utterly ignorant on the fact that state and local pays for nearly all of education, nearly all of law enforcement and the great majority of public healthcare. I try to explain these things, even use the state and federal budgets, and Americans won't believe that. They want to send more money to the US gov't, the same entity that can declare war. And if you think the UN cannot ... think again. Read up on the '50s and early '60s and Africa and other things. The UN no longer engages in 'offensive activity' because of the politics of its leaders during those years. More centralized and farther away is the problem! You're going the wrong direction! Quote:
No ... Libertarians are the return to the "Radical Republicans" of the 1860s to 1960s. I'm amazed by how many Millennials don't know that the Republicans used to be the "True Liberals." Quote:
Only engineers, not politicians, can create green technology. If my time at NASA taught me anything, it's the folly of politicians. Don't get me started. I don't work in government any more for that reason, despite first-hand referrals, including from both the Obama, and now Trump, administrations. This is the reality. Look to Canada. Look at what they are doing. The average American is so ignorant of their 'consumer impact,' and do not want to make the sacrifices required. Americans are against pipeline, so we use even worse rail and truck. The Canadians hate us for our rail killing their citizens, and want us to build pipelines. But going outside of America, European citizens are much, much better in this regard than any of us in the western hemisphere. But at least they build pipelines too, when required. So I don't like it when Americans just 'blame the corporations.' They just don't want to 'see' how their cow is chopped into a steak. If they were forced to ... say ... pay a carbon and other impact tax -- for their goods made elsewhere, then shipped over nasty, and I mean nasty, container ships, etc... -- they'd change overnight. But until Americans don't want to pay for carbon, personally, it won't change. "Make the corporations create 0 impact technology." As an engineer, I'll tell you ... that's impossible. Yes ... we Libertarians are FOR carbon (and other impact) taxes! The Obama adminsitration is an absolute ideal example of total special interest in cap'n trade. Multi-nationals, mega-corporations accelerated under Obama, especially around Energy ... other than Shale. The irony is that nearly all of Obama's 8% CO2 drop was due to Shale that started 2 years before he got in. But that's another story. At least on the Energy front, it's happening. Europe and Asia are being forced to Green, and fossil fuels are getting expensive, which means America is changing too. Many major energy companies are investing, as Shale is just a stop-gap. Quote:
I have a general and great distain for Thomas Jefferson. Hillary Clinton reminds me most of him too, especially the circumstances and media leading up to his election. Hillary just lost. I wish she would have won, and her Progressive agenda would have been totally despised by Liberals by the time her term was over. It would have 'reset' the Democrats. The party really needs to be. The Republicans are already going through their change, and it's getting ugly. But at least it's happening, albeit slowly. Trump is forcing it, and he will be hated in the long haul for it ... because he's not a politician. But a reality TV star. That's why the US media wanted him as President. He's awesome for revenue.
__________________
Prof Voluptuary - Gen-X American Male - Wide, full, hanging breasts make me hard; But powerful thighs with full, fanging hips holding up her extremely curved, voluptuous hourglass centerpiece make me unload Last edited by profvolup; July 12th, 2017 at 02:03 PM.. |
|||||||||
July 13th, 2017, 11:11 AM | #93 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Oakland, California, United States. I have a beautful view of the BART tracks and I-980
Posts: 8,955
Thanks: 103,061
Thanked 151,624 Times in 8,946 Posts
|
I have been thinking and understand your arguments. It cannot be denied that the experience of large governments and centralized state control (e.g. USSR, Maoist China, Nazi Germany) is really ugly. I have been appalled to discover what some of our liberal and progressive icons have really been up to. Our little discussion keeps wandering off to other issues and into the unforeseen consequences of the Constitutional Convention's work.
Here is a little throwaway observation: http://vintage-erotica-forum.com/sho...8&postcount=95 It might help you to understand my views to know that I was raised in a large family and that I was brought up Roman Catholic and spent years in their schools. My instinctive understanding is that we are part of a larger community and society and our individual wants and desires are subordinate to the success of the larger group. Another core value is that character development is far more important than wealth accumulation. A third is that surplus wealth is to be shared with those less fortunate. It is almost funny that you spent many years working for the government and grew to greatly mistrust it and I spent years working in Corporate America and came to believe that we must do everything possible to resist the influence of corporations. But I continue to digress. You have failed to persuade me that the primary motive of the creators of the U.S. Constitution was something other than maintaining and expanding their political power and wealth. I acknowledge that I omitted mentioning that most of the delegates were also committed to framing a republican form of government. Alexander Hamilton was the most notable and vocal advocate of building an empire and the United States eventually taking a place among the great powers. Thomas Jefferson was a man of many contradictions. His hypocrisy and inconsistency was constantly noted in the press, in the political speeches of the day, and by biographers and historians ever since. He was not, however, a delegate to the convention and played no direct part in its framing. |
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Arturo2nd For This Useful Post: |
July 16th, 2017, 04:26 PM | #94 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Oakland, California, United States. I have a beautful view of the BART tracks and I-980
Posts: 8,955
Thanks: 103,061
Thanked 151,624 Times in 8,946 Posts
|
I have posted more on my thinking in the "Current or Modern Politics" thread believing that more discussion is in order, but this thread is not the proper place for it.
http://vintage-erotica-forum.com/sho...postcount=2771 |
July 17th, 2017, 04:00 PM | #95 | |
Vintage Member
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Lompoc, California USA
Posts: 1,825
Thanks: 28,222
Thanked 23,544 Times in 1,832 Posts
|
SCOTUS has known to be WRONG
Quote:
Because SCOTUS got it wrong in 1884, they have a long history of wrong decisions that later courts reversed or revised, does not mean that was not the intent of the amendment. You can make that argument about native Americans but you would be, along with SCOTUS, wrong. What you are doing by citing SCOTUS is to raise a SCOTUS ruling to the level of infallibility. If SCOTUS is always right then you, as a liberal, would have to agree that more current rulings like People United, Heller, and Hobby Lobby are constitutional. What about the slaves. There is no question the 14th was intended to grant citizenship to slaves born in the America. And unless you are willing to ignore the plain language of the 14th it would also apply to Native Americans. So that brings us to the question of the 14th in regards to anchor babies. In the censuses of 1860 the population was 31.4 mil. up 35.4 percent from the 1850 censuses. Our nation was growing at a large rate because in part because of the need to populate the vast expanse of the west. In the 1860s if you were headed south towards Mexico unless you were a surveyor you would not know were/when exactly you left Texas and entered Mexico. The term illegal immigration, if it even existed in 1868, did not mean what it does today. There is no possible way for John Bingham or Jacob M. Howard ( the men who wrote the 14th ) could have envisioned America with a population of over 320 mil. Nor could they envision the welfare state that America has turned into that acts like a magnet for the poor, inducing them to break our immigration laws. Do you think it was their intent that the 14th be used to circumvent US immigration law, further more acting as a magnet for Latin America's poor to come here illegally? It was clearly not the intent of the 14th to create anchor babies. In 2017 birthright citizenship is doing great harm to America and it should be changed. I believe Article 5 of the 14th gives congress the right to change this by legislation as opposed to having to change it threw another amendment.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Last edited by Faceman675; July 21st, 2017 at 04:18 AM.. Reason: Accidentally posted to soon. |
|
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Faceman675 For This Useful Post: |
July 23rd, 2017, 09:35 PM | #96 | |
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Upper left corner
Posts: 7,212
Thanks: 48,023
Thanked 83,520 Times in 7,206 Posts
|
Quote:
Remember -- the Bill of Rights is in fact an "afterthought" to the Constitution. EG, they wrote the Constitution, and then realized they'd established a Government with all sorts of powers, but no real limits. So, you then get the Bill of Rights. But the thing that they never specified is what remedy there is for a Federal Government that violates these rights. That the Supreme Court may enjoin the Federal government based on their reading of the Constitution is, itself, not in the Constitution-- though its long established by Marbury v. Madison. The awkward truth is that, contrary to Tea Party cranks who walk around with pocket Constitutions -- of which they appear to have read only a portion of the 2nd and 10th Amendments-- the Constitution is anything but complete, and doesn't go much further than broad principles which must be interpreted by judges or supplemented in law to have practical application to the modern world. So, other than impeachment, the Founders simply didn't say what's supposed to happen when the Government does bad things . . . |
|
September 25th, 2020, 11:14 PM | #97 | ||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Oakland, California, United States. I have a beautful view of the BART tracks and I-980
Posts: 8,955
Thanks: 103,061
Thanked 151,624 Times in 8,946 Posts
|
The Drafters of the Constitution on Democracy
For those who think that the founders of our republic believed in the wisdom of crowds I offer the quotes below.
from Alexander Hamilton: Quote:
Quote:
|
||
September 27th, 2020, 09:23 AM | #98 | |
Vintage Member
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Beyond the Pale
Posts: 961
Thanks: 44,589
Thanked 56,924 Times in 1,015 Posts
|
Unconstitutional or just illegal?
Quote:
Oh, and I do support taking automatic citizenship away from anchor babies. That is very constitutional, but then I ain't a lawyer. |
|
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Paddy Bog For This Useful Post: |
September 27th, 2020, 09:55 AM | #99 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Oakland, California, United States. I have a beautful view of the BART tracks and I-980
Posts: 8,955
Thanks: 103,061
Thanked 151,624 Times in 8,946 Posts
|
Why is it that right wing racist bigots keep ignoring the simple fact that illegal immigrants are legally barred from accessing the welfare system? Even legal immigrants face significant legal barriers to accessing taxpayer supported systems without qualifying for citizenship. Moreover, it is well known that the process of becoming a citizen is difficult enough that most native born citizens cannot pass the exam.
|
September 27th, 2020, 11:58 AM | #100 | |
Vintage Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 5,110
Thanks: 25,986
Thanked 111,155 Times in 5,210 Posts
|
Quote:
__________________
Somebody calls you, you answer quite slowly, A girl with kaleidoscope eyes |
|
|
|