Printable View
[QUOTE=Punter127;444373]Maybe you would like to tell us how you feel about the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Did you ever read them? After you finish that look up the word Liberty.[/QUOTE]While 1776 will exist and will remain the core of our existence, the Supreme Court is here to deal with our ever daily changing world.
I look up Liberty, and I saw you in a white strait jacket!
I hope you have a sense of humor, we already know you have a high intellect.
[B]I'll put your snide (school yard level) remarks aside.[/B]
[QUOTE=RevBS;444382]While 1776 will exist and will remain the core of our existence, the Supreme Court is here to deal with our ever daily changing world.[/QUOTE]Judging strictly from what you have written here you seem to have a misconception of the Supreme Courts role, unfortunately you're not alone.
"The Supreme Court is the final judge in all cases involving laws of Congress, and the highest law of all...the Constitution. The Supreme Court, however, is far from all-powerful. Its power is limited by the other two branches of government.".
So the Supreme Court is [B]not[/B] here to deal with "our ever daily changing world" but rather to make sure "our ever daily changing world" complies with the highest man made law of all...the Constitution.
I think part of the problem is you just don't understand our system, you (and others) don't seem to understand that we live in a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy, not even a Representative Democracy, but a Republic.
Maybe this will help;.
[QUOTE]The chief characteristic and distinguishing feature of a Democracy is: Rule by Omnipotent Majority. In a Democracy, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man.
A Republic, on the other hand, has a very different purpose and an entirely different form, or system, of government. Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individuals God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general. The definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution--by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment--with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Here the term "the people" means, of course, the electorate.[/QUOTE]If you really care about the little guy (individual liberty) and Minorities you should be very happy we are a Republic.
The link has a more in depth explanation that everyone should read and try to understand.
[URL]http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demrep.html[/URL]
BTW this "greater good" crapola that you preach is just an argument used by one group to gain control over another.
I'm Proud to be and American, how about you?
It is not the way you say it is.
It is Government by Big Business, for Big Business.
Buy a politician today.
[QUOTE=Punter127;444383][B]I'll put your snide (school yard level) remarks aside.[/B]
Judging strictly from what you have written here you seem to have a misconception of the Supreme Courts role, unfortunately you're not alone.
"The Supreme Court is the final judge in all cases involving laws of Congress, and the highest law of all...the Constitution. The Supreme Court, however, is far from all-powerful. Its power is limited by the other two branches of government.".
So the Supreme Court is [B]not[/B] here to deal with "our ever daily changing world" but rather to make sure "our ever daily changing world" complies with the highest man made law of all...the Constitution.
I think part of the problem is you just don't understand our system, you (and others) don't seem to understand that we live in a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy, not even a Representative Democracy, but a Republic.
Maybe this will help;.
If you really care about the little guy (individual liberty) and Minorities you should be very happy we are a Republic.
The link has a more in depth explanation that everyone should read and try to understand.
[URL]http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demrep.html[/URL]
BTW this "greater good" crapola that you preach is just an argument used by one group to gain control over another.
I'm Proud to be and American, how about you?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Punter127;444383][B]I'll put your snide (school yard level) remarks aside.[/B]
Judging strictly from what you have written here you seem to have a misconception of the Supreme Courts role, unfortunately you're not alone.
"The Supreme Court is the final judge in all cases involving laws of Congress, and the highest law of all...the Constitution. The Supreme Court, however, is far from all-powerful. Its power is limited by the other two branches of government.".
So the Supreme Court is [B]not[/B]
BTW this "greater good" crapola that you preach is just an argument used by one group to gain control over another.
I'm Proud to be and American, how about you?[/QUOTE]The Greater Good is a when an individual or group is willing to give up up, compromise, sacrifice their right/gain/benefit in order that a Greater Number of people will gain from that action. Like dividing your loaf of bread. It actually starts when you treat and look at another human being as your brother.
Just look around you, there is so much harshness.
It is not crap.
[QUOTE=RevBS;444385]The Greater Good is a when an individual or group is willing to give up up, compromise, sacrifice their right/gain/benefit in order that a Greater Number of people will gain from that action. Like dividing your loaf of bread. It actually starts when you treat and look at another human being as your brother.
[/QUOTE]I have no desire to wade into an argument between two people I respect. This is just meant to be a possible explanation of a misunderstanding that I think some people have who are left of center. Libertarians believe that free markets and capitalism have lifted billions out of poverty, and we believe the policies we favor will benefit the greatest number of people. This is counter-intuitive, because Social Democrats and socialists would appear to have morality on their side. That is, how can businesses and people, competing against each other and pursuing their own selfish ends, create greater prosperity for more people than a society based on sharing and equality?
Reverend, Two people on separate occasions in the island nation where you were transiting the other day told me something like "Forty years ago, we were a wealthier country than Hong Kong/Singapore. Now look what happened." What happened was that Sri Lanka pursued economic policies like Europe. Industries were nationalized and taxes went up to among the highest in the developing world. And corruption remained a fixture in government. They blew it.
[QUOTE=RevBS;444385]The Greater Good is a when an individual or group is willing to give up up, compromise, sacrifice their right/gain/benefit in order that a Greater Number of people will gain from that action. Like dividing your loaf of bread. It actually starts when you treat and look at another human being as your brother.
Just look around you, there is so much harshness.
It is not crap.[/QUOTE]A challenge to the altruists in this forum, read and debate this.
[URL]https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/2006/05/altruism-the-morality-of-logical-fallacies/[/URL]
Don B.
[QUOTE=DonB;444387]A challenge to the altruists in this forum, read and debate this.
[URL]https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/2006/05/altruism-the-morality-of-logical-fallacies/[/URL]
Don B.[/QUOTE]But do you have a heart? Anyway, it's a personal choice. Up to you.
Contrary to some accusations, I am not superior nor a saint.
Did anyone notice how the US just bent over for Eurasia over the AIIB?
Even the krauts told the US to buzz off. Now the US wants to cooperate. Lol. That's what these fools get for playing checkers with people who are masters at the long game. It seems everybody knows which way the wind is blowing. Except the rhetorical tards.
[QUOTE=Tiny12;444386]Reverend, Two people on separate occasions in the island nation where you were transiting the other day told me something like "Forty years ago, we were a wealthier country than Hong Kong/Singapore. Now look what happened." What happened was that Sri Lanka pursued economic policies like Europe. Industries were nationalized and taxes went up to among the highest in the developing world. And corruption remained a fixture in government. They blew it.[/QUOTE]I profess no knowledge of Sri Lanka's economic story except to say that everything about Sri Lanka in the last 50 years has to be taken within the context of the civil strife that plague and consume the life out of Sri Lanka at every level.
If it were not for China's emergence as an economic power & leader during this time, what you describe of Sri Lanka is close to universal in lesser developed countries. And don't laugh, but Brazil might even fall into that category. And here, they are staging the Olympic Games next year! Correct me if I'm mistaken.
But for sure, I will be visiting Sri Lanka very soon.
Haha. I just read the Sri Lanka bit. Just hedge accordingly and enjoy the ride. The world is fucked 6 ways from Sunday. We are living in the midst of wwIII and the great decoupling. Either we all die ( those who advocate we stand up to Russia ) or there is a slow great paradigm shift. No two ways about it. I personally enjoy watching those with cognitive dissonance and paradigm paralysis. Its quite entertaining from an academic standpoint to say the least.
[QUOTE=RevBS;444393]But do you have a heart? Anyway, it's a personal choice. Up to you.
Contrary to some accusations, I am not superior nor a saint.[/QUOTE]What an outstanding defense of altruism.
Another try to remove the altruist's head's from their asses.
[URL]https://drhurd.com/ohio-gov-john-kasich-reveals-why-repulicans-are-losers/[/URL]
Don B.
The New Political System.
[URL]http://billmoyers.com/2015/03/25/new-american-order/[/URL]
[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;444384]It is not the way you say it is.
It is Government by Big Business, for Big Business.
Buy a politician today.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=DonB;444455]What an outstanding defense of altruism.
Another try to remove the altruist's head's from their asses.
[URL]https://drhurd.com/ohio-gov-john-kasich-reveals-why-repulicans-are-losers/[/URL]
Don B.[/QUOTE]Thanks for the link. You the man.
[QUOTE=DonB;444455]What an outstanding defense of altruism.
Another try to remove the altruist's head's from their asses.
[URL]https://drhurd.com/ohio-gov-john-kasich-reveals-why-repulicans-are-losers/[/URL]
Don B.[/QUOTE]We're on the same page on most issues but disagree on this one. I'm with the Reverend, Kasich is my man too. It would be great if he were the Republican nominee for President. He beat his Democrat opponent by 30 percentage points in the last Ohio gubernatorial election. Kasich didn't come up with the wasteful, inefficient, anti-free-enterprise U.S. Health care system. He'd be doing a disservice to his constituents if he didn't accept federal funds for Medicaid. I personally don't have a problem with government helping children and the poor with medical care, providing it's done efficiently, which it's not now. I'm also a big supporter of private altruism. Yes you want to make sure the funds are going to good use and aren't being siphoned off by administrative overhead or otherwise. Disaster relief and vaccinations and other basic medical care for children in third world countries are two of my favorites. Yes, public altruism has its problems. One example, paying Cargill and ADM millions for grain that's shipped to African countries to support American farmers. Sometimes the grain gets resold by corrupt government officials to China or who knows where. And it can put local farmers out of business, who can't compete with free food.
[QUOTE=Tiny12;444471]We're on the same page on most issues but disagree on this one. I'm with the Reverend, Kasich is my man too. It would be great if he were the Republican nominee for President. He beat his Democrat opponent by 30 percentage points in the last Ohio gubernatorial election. Kasich didn't come up with the wasteful, inefficient, anti-free-enterprise U.S. Health care system. He'd be doing a disservice to his constituents if he didn't accept federal funds for Medicaid. I personally don't have a problem with government helping children and the poor with medical care, providing it's done efficiently, which it's not now. I'm also a big supporter of private altruism. Yes you want to make sure the funds are going to good use and aren't being siphoned off by administrative overhead or otherwise. Disaster relief and vaccinations and other basic medical care for children in third world countries are two of my favorites. Yes, public altruism has its problems. One example, paying Cargill and ADM millions for grain that's shipped to African countries to support American farmers. Sometimes the grain gets resold by corrupt government officials to China or who knows where. And it can put local farmers out of business, who can't compete with free food.[/QUOTE]You are confusing altruism with benevolence.
How does one persons need constitute a claim on another's life?
How can you morally justify using force, the government, to enforce that claim?
Don B.