Author |
Message |
Sifo
| Posted on Sunday, March 04, 2012 - 05:38 pm: |
|
I was hoping this thread might break some new ground. For a moment it seemed like some real communication might just happen between the two sides of the political fence. I think it's fair to say that both sides don't want to ignore the plight of the poor for example. Both sides claim to care about the Constitution. The conservative side can clearly point out that all these federal programs are not provided for in the Constitution. I'd really like to hear the defense of these programs from the liberals as to how they relate to the Constitution. No one doubts the good intentions, but you know what they say about good intentions and the road to hell. Bottom line, the founders had years of debate on how to avoid the pitfalls of tyranny. They didn't take their position in history lightly. Many good people gave their lives for that to happen. I don't think we should take what they accomplished lightly. We ignore our Constitution at our own peril, regardless of how good our intentions are. I have no idea if any of the liberals are still reading any of this. If they are I hope some of what has been said gives you something to think about. I think a good faith effort has been made by many of the conservative folks to make it clear what their vision is and how it relates to the Constitution. So how about it. Let's hear from the other side. Let's have a real discussion. Does the Constitution really matter to you? How does that believe relate to supporting the constant pushing of the boundaries of the Constitution? Is there a limit to that, or is the flexibility you see in the Constitution infinite? |
Whatever
| Posted on Sunday, March 04, 2012 - 07:35 pm: |
|
I wonder if the founding fathers thought that corporations should be treated with the same inalienable righs as people under the law? Is the word corporation in the constitution? Does the constitution give corporations more power than the federal government? Does the constitution indicate that corporations should not pay taxes? Does the constitution outline who has authority over my very own vagina? Does the constitution indicate that a state has the right to put someone to death? Are these questions too difficult for anyone to answer? (Message edited by Whatever on March 04, 2012) |
Whatever
| Posted on Sunday, March 04, 2012 - 07:38 pm: |
|
Ooops... maybe that was posted in the wrong thread... carry on... |
Sifo
| Posted on Sunday, March 04, 2012 - 08:02 pm: |
|
I wonder if the founding fathers thought that corporations should be treated with the same inalienable righs as people under the law? I'll just take the first one to see if you really want a discussion... First off, they don't. Do you believe in taxation without representation though? This presents a problem if you want them to have zero political say. Also why should a corporation not enjoy the rights that unions have enjoyed for decades? |
Whatever
| Posted on Sunday, March 04, 2012 - 08:22 pm: |
|
Personally, I beleive in no contribution to election funds from either, unless capped at, say $200 each or so. The Donald's vote should equal the poorest individuals vote, whether that person contributes to society or not. I know my vote is equal to my father's vote and we are opposite ends of the spectrum. |
Whatever
| Posted on Sunday, March 04, 2012 - 08:25 pm: |
|
It just seems to me that no one wants to speak about the real issues. It is all about slinging mud. Do people really believe some of this sh*t that the extreme element spews? I thought most people here were smarter than that. |
Sifo
| Posted on Sunday, March 04, 2012 - 08:27 pm: |
|
But what about the taxation issue? We fought a war largely over taxation without representation. If an entity is going to get taxed, do they not have some say in the matter? |
Whatever
| Posted on Sunday, March 04, 2012 - 08:30 pm: |
|
Residents of DC don't have any representation in Congress. Convicted felons in many states don't have any representation in Congress. Should Native American Tribes have elected representation in Congress? Let's say one representative at least for each separate tribal nation? Last time I checked, when the constitution was written, women and slaves had no representation in Congress. (Message edited by Whatever on March 04, 2012) |
Whatever
| Posted on Sunday, March 04, 2012 - 08:32 pm: |
|
Why are corporations seen as more important than residents of DC, convicted felons (at least in NC that are incarcerated or still on paper) and Native American Governments? |
Sifo
| Posted on Sunday, March 04, 2012 - 08:38 pm: |
|
Is it really your contention that corporations have representatives in Congress that others don't? You make some interesting points, but do they really have anything to do with your reason for bringing up corporations in the first place. I don't see the connection. |
Ft_bstrd
| Posted on Sunday, March 04, 2012 - 08:50 pm: |
|
I wonder if the founding fathers thought that corporations should be treated with the same inalienable righs as people under the law? The Framers believed in individual property rights. Since corporations can't own them selves, they are extensions of people as property. Corporations should have no fewer rights than people (which was the intent of the Framers). If they believed that corporations were evil, they would have created limitations on them when the Constitution was created. They were VERY aware of corporations. Ever heard of the East India Trading Company? In 1790, it had a market capital that in todays dollars was worth about $1.1T. In 2011, the largest US corporation, Exxon Mobil, was worth about $400B. Were the EITCo around today, it could buy Exxon, Apple, IBM, and Microsoft and STILL have change left over. Is thew ord corporation in the constitution? No but property is several times. Corporations are property. Does the constitution give corporations more power than the federal government? Yes actually. Individuals were to have maximum power and lend only a few of those powers necessary to create a stable nation to the Federal government. The ONLY reason that corporations are even brought into the conversation is that the Federal government has overstepped it's limitations. Why would corporations even care to get into politics if there weren't trillions of dollars to be had in doing so? Does the constitution indicate that corporations should not pay taxes? No. Beyond taking the legal deductions set forth in our tax code, corporations that fail to pay taxes are prosecuted by the IRS. Does the constitution outline who has authority over my very own vagina? What you do or not do with your vagina has little to do with anything. The point at which you have made a decision, accepted a deposit, and created a human being, the Federal government SHOULD have an obligation to step in and protect that human being. Birth control after the fact as protected under the current law is government sanctioned murder. Does the constitution indicate that a state has the right to put someone to death? Yes. The Tenth Amendment specifically provides that powers not granted to the Federal government are reserved for the states. This includes allowing each to punish criminals as the state sees fit. There are laws however against cruel and unusual punishment. We no longer draw and quarter folks in this country. Pity that. Are these questions too difficult for anyone to answer? No. I just did. Now proceed with emotional screed reply. |
Sifo
| Posted on Sunday, March 04, 2012 - 08:56 pm: |
|
What's more, I find it odd that until the recent Supreme Court decision, I have never heard any complaints about the rights afforded unions. Since that time I hear all the time "corporations aren't people", etc., but never do they mention unions unless prompted. I also find it interesting that I've seen protesters under union banners with this sort of anti-corporation slogan. Forgive my skepticism, but I'm just not really convinced that anyone who is floating this line is really equally against the political power that unions have. |
Ft_bstrd
| Posted on Sunday, March 04, 2012 - 09:06 pm: |
|
Residents of DC don't have any representation in Congress. Actually, they do. Article 1, Section 8 Clause 17 states: [The Congress shall have Power] To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States DC is the responsibility of the entire Congress. Plus DC gets 3 electoral votes for President. Convicted felons in many states don't have any representation in Congress. Why is this a problem? Should Native American Tribes have elected representation in Congress? Let's say one representative at least for each separate tribal nation? } Ever heard of the Voting Rights Act of 1965? bLast time I checked, when the constitution was written, women and slaves had no representation in Congress. Yep, and the citizenry of the United States used the mechanism of the amendment process to alter the powers of the Federal government to provide for women's suffrage and emancipation and suffrage rights for black people. |
Whatever
| Posted on Sunday, March 04, 2012 - 09:06 pm: |
|
I am not emotional about it Fatty... I am just confused. It seems that there are a lot of people that like to twist things to their purpose. Saying a woman forfeits the right to control over her own body because she is pregnant... well... I guess I can't even touch that one, since some people seem to think that religion and government are the same thing. So, then by corrolary, should churches then be treated as equals with the same rights as individuals according to your thinking? I take your answer at face value about the death penalty. What I don't understand is that a person convicted, rightly or wrongly, suddenly has a life worth nothing? If the state says so... that is. That doesn't make any sense to me. The inconsistencies are rampant Should then "property" be defined as the founding fathers literally defined property... to include slaves and women? If they were here, most of them would certainly say so, from what I understand. Crusty brings up some good points too. If people who can't pay exorbitant medical debts should be treated like criminals, well then, I suppose I would be living my life in jail? If I just happened to live in the UK I would be some $120,000 ahead of where I am today. There are a lot of things we need to work on in our country... I don't see another witch hunt on the sitting President serving any purpose... unless the purpose is to waste so much time and energy that his re-election is imminent. |
Whatever
| Posted on Sunday, March 04, 2012 - 09:09 pm: |
|
Why do all the DC license plates I see say "Taxation without representation"? |
Whatever
| Posted on Sunday, March 04, 2012 - 09:13 pm: |
|
I have seen the gross injustices of our court system personally. Where perpetrators have well paid lawyers that get them off and not only that, reparation for their crimes. Even with the exonerations of death row inmates by current DNA technology... some still believe putting people to death is righteous. I just find some views not really rational. This is one of them. |
Whatever
| Posted on Sunday, March 04, 2012 - 09:14 pm: |
|
I thought the people in Congress were elected by the people of the states, but not by the people of DC? |
Sifo
| Posted on Sunday, March 04, 2012 - 09:15 pm: |
|
Even with the exonerations of death row inmates by current DNA technology... some still believe putting people to death is righteous. It actually makes it more so than ever. With DNA evidence we can be more certain than ever of guilt in many cases. Your line of logic has evaded me every time I've heard it. |
Whatever
| Posted on Sunday, March 04, 2012 - 09:19 pm: |
|
Ha ha ha... that is funny Sifo. Do you believe a two celled organism is more important than a grown human being? |
Whatever
| Posted on Sunday, March 04, 2012 - 09:21 pm: |
|
That is a really slick idea. |
Sifo
| Posted on Sunday, March 04, 2012 - 09:23 pm: |
|
Ha ha ha... that is funny Sifo. Do you believe a two celled organism is more important than a grown human being? Now I'm not even clear what comment you are responding to. (There's several that have been ignored so far.) Do you really want to draw me into the abortion debate? Last time you wouldn't answer my questions. |
Whatever
| Posted on Sunday, March 04, 2012 - 09:32 pm: |
|
That I am not rational seems really funny to me. That people think we have a non citizen sitting President is really funny too. Hey, by the way, our "non-citizen" President has deported more illegal aliens in the last year than W Jr. did. What question do you want me to answer? That I think we should have a Board of Directors running our country that are hand selected by corporations? |
Ft_bstrd
| Posted on Sunday, March 04, 2012 - 09:33 pm: |
|
I am not emotional about it Fatty... I am just confused. Glad to hear it. I'd like to have a civil and logical discourse about these issues. I believe that most are simply confused and ill-informed about the issues. Others simply choose not to see because being illogical about the issue seems more compassionate. It seems that there are a lot of people that like to twist things to their purpose. I seek not to do so and feel I am straight forward. If you feel I am twisting an issue, please explain so that I can defend my position or explain my viewpoint. Saying a woman forfeits the right to control over her own body because she is pregnant... well... I guess I can't even touch that one, since some people seem to think that religion and government are the same thing. I DON'T believe religion and government are the same thing. You don't see me or anyone else calling for the establishment of the Church of America. There is only ONE activity that creates a pregnancy. ONE. Now you could say that rape and incest is one of those activities and you'd be correct. That said, less than 1% of all abortions are performed as the result of rape or incest. That leaves 99% of all abortions performed as after the fact birth control. If you are going to engage in sexual intercourse, pregnancy is a likely outcome. If you don't want a pregnancy, don't engage in sexual intercourse. It's not really rocket science. If you become pregnant, an abortion is terminating a growing human being. If you don't want to have a child, you can place it up for adoption. Again, it really isn't rocket science. So, then by corrolary, should churches then be treated as equals with the same rights as individuals according to your thinking? Churches are prohibited from contributing to political candidates as well as being places were direct political campaigning is conducted. To do so, invites an audit from the IRS and potential revocation of 501(c)(3) non-profit status. I take your answer at face value about the death penalty. What I don't understand is that a person convicted, rightly or wrongly, suddenly has a life worth nothing? If the state says so... that is. That doesn't make any sense to me. It isn't a matter of the life having "no value". In fact it is just the opposite. What the law states is that the life is forfeit in payment of a debt to the victim or victim's family. The crime is deemed so severe that the most valuable asset, one's life, must be forfeit to provide restitution for the crime. There simply isn't anything worth as much. The inconsistencies are rampant Your assessment. I feel I am extremely consistent. Should then "property" be defined as the founding fathers literally defined property... to include slaves and women? If they were here, most of them would certainly say so, from what I understand. At the time of the Framing of the Constitution, yes slaves were property. Women weren't but were not treated equally. The laws were amended to correct both of these legal definitions and to convey FULL citizenship. Crusty brings up some good points too. If people who can't pay exorbitant medical debts should be treated like criminals, well then, I suppose I would be living my life in jail? There is absolutely NOTHING in the Constitution that states that you have the right to the property or the labor of another individual. When you seek medical treatment, that treatment comes at a cost to another. That physician is providing a service for cost. If you receive that service and do not pay, you have stolen the product of that physician's labor. If you provided environmental consulting services and then weren't paid for your services, would you not view your time as being stolen? Why should a physician not? If I just happened to live in the UK I would be some $120,000 ahead of where I am today. Maybe. Maybe not. You would have had fewer medical bills at the cost of economic opportunity. There is no free ride. There are a lot of things we need to work on in our country... I don't see another witch hunt on the sitting President serving any purpose... unless the purpose is to waste so much time and energy that his re-election is imminent. I am not conducting any sort of witch hunt. My goal is simply to defend the Constitution against a President hell bent on destroying it. If the issue of his forged birth certificate is enough to remove him from office and prevent him from further destruction of the Constitution, I'm all for it. I'll use whatever tool in the toolbox gets the job done. The things that need to be fixed are NOT creating the next great entitlement program. We need to fix the Constitution so that the Federal government is returned to its proper role and power. The genie must be returned to the bottle. |
Sifo
| Posted on Sunday, March 04, 2012 - 09:38 pm: |
|
What question do you want me to answer? How about my post...
quote:Is it really your contention that corporations have representatives in Congress that others don't? You make some interesting points, but do they really have anything to do with your reason for bringing up corporations in the first place. I don't see the connection.
What is your point about corporations? You just seemed to abandon that line of reasoning when I asked. |
Kenm123t
| Posted on Sunday, March 04, 2012 - 10:00 pm: |
|
Char sign up for Hillsdale college online course on the Constitution Its free Then read the Federalist papers Commentary by the authors of the Constitution promoting its adoption. Two cells have the same rights as all of yours Before your preg its a choice after its a responsibility. How does the fed control what goes on in schools through the school lunch programs once you take Fed money for contraception get back to us how much control you have over your vagina The most dangerous words you will ever hear is were from the gov and were here to help you. Once again Corps do not pay taxes we merely collect them. Obama Show us his thesis or any thing he has really written Ayers brags about writing one of his books. The district was created as the seat of federal gov See Federalist papers. Convicted felons can vote if thier civil rights have been restored Most states have a system for that Just dont show up at the Poll and want to vote without doing the paper work! Not every state has a automatic system or restoration. If you want to control your very own vagina and the rest of your body pay for your own insurance When the gov pays your a slave to it. and you give up control of your treatment. They Indian nations are that nations and citizens of the US. Indian nations control their lands and resources I love how they make Big money on casinos |
Sifo
| Posted on Sunday, March 04, 2012 - 10:14 pm: |
|
Dear diary, Had a short conversation with a liberal today. There was some back and forth, but I found it very difficult to follow the constant subject changes. The conversation seemed to suddenly stop when I tried to focus on a single topic for some depth of the discussion. Perhaps someday. Goodnight. |
Whatever
| Posted on Sunday, March 04, 2012 - 10:22 pm: |
|
Sifo. I think, very simply put, when property becomes more important than people, we, as a nation are doomed. When infinite wealth is the goal of the majority of the people in a country... when people are more than willing to throw their neighbor under the bus to get to some magical ideal of wealth... when one in four people are hungry in the wealthiest nation in the world... I think there are problems that can only be addressed by collective effort, and the most effective collective effort is still an elected government. I think that is a pretty basic concept. Americans, in general are the most materialistic people I know. I recently had a conversation with a Scottish couple. They have single payer health care. It costs them something like one dollar a month. Wow! NO ONE in thier country has to go bankrupt because they are sick. Instead of all the wasted resources on emergency care, they take care of most problems before they are problems with preventative treatment. No one they know, and I am guessing they are not lying, has a problem with it. Sounds horrible, right? Ken, I will read your literature when you read "Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism" by Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche. |
Whatever
| Posted on Sunday, March 04, 2012 - 10:35 pm: |
|
Don't even ask me where my ideas about medicine came from. I grew up in a home where my father, a respected surgeon, was worth 2 Million and probably is worth double that now. I don't know. I haven't taken a penny from him in the last 22 years. Half of that was from elective plastic surgery, which in my mind, if you are stupid enough to get it, you can pay for it. The other half of that money was from people who had horrific accidents. People who, consistently, had done nothing "wrong" per se... but maybe were in the wrong place at the wrong time. They may have been victims of horrible crime or just drunken idiots on the road hitting them or whatever. I always felt that was dirty. I always felt that part of the American medical establishment was dishonest. I always felt that we as human beings have an obligation to help other people regardless of their misfortunes. Some people need religions to tell them that. I never did. I always thought it was wrong. Charging someone 400% for a service, that reasonably should only cost 100% is synonymous with me to robbery. So yeah, my father, in my eyes, in some ways was a theif... and I benefited from it. That doesn't make it right. Just as embezzling 30 billion to 60 billion from the taxpayers for war profiteering would also be considered theivery in my book. It makes sense to me to call that stealing. (Message edited by Whatever on March 04, 2012) |
Whatever
| Posted on Sunday, March 04, 2012 - 10:44 pm: |
|
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/government_programs /july-dec11/warcontracts_09-01.html |
86129squids
| Posted on Sunday, March 04, 2012 - 10:59 pm: |
|
Great thread. One thing I love most about BW'ers is their minds, and their ability to articulate them. Ken. Please, may I humbly ask you to follow a basic high school English textbook, for remedial grammar/syntax- so far, your spelling is pretty much OK. I am completely serious. I am not trying to insult you. In the past, you've posted many comments I'd like to have responded to, but given the input, I couldn't guarantee the output. (I feel I should apologize in advance. I'm not good at a whole lotta things, but with writing I'm pretty dang OK.) Thanks. |
|