http://www.drudgereport.com/rtl.htm
Rush Limbaugh has lost his hearing. Maybe, hopefully, he'll give up his radio show. Frankly, I'd rather listen to some sensible conservatives (Ron Smith, for one) instead of the reactionary, racist, homophobe that is Herr Limbaugh.
You, of all people, have no right to call Limbaugh reactionary. Especially when you consider that all you say against him is based on what other people told you to believe, and not on personal experience.
And so it begins again...
Blah, blah, blah, unfounded accusations, blah, blah, evidence, blah blah, put up or shut up.
P.S. Don't even start, Omega. I have listened to Rush Limbaugh MANY times over the past year or so. All he ever does on his show is blame everything on the evil Democrat conspiracy while praising the Republicans as gods. "If something happens, it's the Dems fault." is his basic outlook on the world.
This is off topic, but have any of you heard about this Republican senator that is trying to find evidence and convict Al Gore of giving the order to shoot down TWA flight 800 and that he single handily covered it up?
One more thing. Anyone who refers to himself as the "All knowing, All seeing, All wise, Ma-Ha Rushie," has some serious problems.
[ October 09, 2001: Message edited by: MIB ]
quote:
what other people told you to believe, and not on personal experience.
Believe it or not, "chum", I've tuned into his show before (as I've already said in other instances -- not that you care about facts or anything). I can remember one time he claimed any woman with a big dog was a man-hating dyke. I also remember the time he called Chelsea Clinton the "White House Dog" ... and the time, quite recently, where he said the peace-movement was "un-American" ... oh, yes, I can see why you love Mr. Limbaugh so much. He and you operate on the same wave-length.
quote:
This is off topic, but have any of you heard about this Republican senator that is trying to find evidence and convict Al Gore of giving the order to shoot down TWA flight 800 and that he single handily covered it up?
Yes, the government can't cover up Bill Clinton's blow jobs, but it can cover up shooting down passenger jets. Riiiiight. The Republican senator in question (whoever s/he is) needs to open his eyes and get a clue ... (hmmm, Omega could take that advice too)
[ October 09, 2001: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snay ]
quote:
Originally posted by MIB:
One more thing. Anyone who refers to himself as the "All knowing, All seeing, All wise, Ma-Ha Rushie," has some serious problems.
Yeah, because goddess knows we here at Flare abhor megalomania of ANY kind in ANY way, shape or form.
Taken as commentary or even as he has said in the past, entertainment, he has every right to spout what he wants to spout. That does not make it either enlightened or even the truth.
I do, however, hope that his medical problems are such that they can be cured and do not have a lasting affect on his health. I can not imagine losing my hearing at this stage in my life. It must be very frightening.
[ October 09, 2001: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
I mean, this isn't exactly a complicated word. Although it had led to much hilarity in the past. Anyway ...
And in lighter news, I get a sofa and chair today!
He may be in my honest opinion, a real asshole.
He may be in my honest opinion, biased.
But hey, he is only human.
Show him some pity. After all, he is losing what we take for granted. Perhaps permanently.
MIB's comment, that is, though I supppose one could search for irony elsewhere.
[ October 09, 2001: Message edited by: Sol System ]
"Admiral Boorda committed SUICIDE for far less than you have done!"
Oh, look, Jay beat me too it...
Failing that, try checking out his two books. Unfortunately, he hasn't written one since '92 or so, so they're kinda out of date. You can always buy back-issues of the newsletter...
The "Undeniable Truths" are good, as are the "14 Commandments of the Religious Left".
quote:
Evidence refutes liberalism.
No, evidence supports liberalism. History supports liberalism. Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Lincoln, Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy -- liberals all. Hell, Reagan was a Roosevelt liberal ... he just stopped progressing and became a conservative. Any idiot with a history book can see that the conservative philosophy of today is the liberal philosophy of yesterday.
quote:
There is no such thing as a New Democrat.
There's no such thing as a "compassionate conservative."
quote:
The Earth's eco-system is not fragile.
My father's not a fragile man, but that doesn't mean its okay to abuse him.
quote:
Character matters; leadership decends from character.
Yes, too bad Herr Limbaugh has no character.
quote:
The most beautiful thing about a tree is what you do with it after you cut it down.
"Ranger Rush strikes again. The original claim that FAIR had challenged was that "we have more acreage of forest land in the United States today than we did at the time the Constitution was written" (radio, 2/18/94); in his second book, he had written that there is more forest land in the U.S. today than there was when Columbus first reached the New World. The real figures, according to U.S. Forest Service estimates: in 1492, approximately 1 billion acres of forest; in 1787, about 930 million; 1992, 737 million.
"In the past, Limbaugh has tried to prove he was right by showing that there is more forest land now than in 1952 (radio, 7/5/94) or 1920 ("Limbaugh Responds to FAIR," press release)--neither of which has anything to do with the Constitution or Columbus. Now in his third failed defense, he cites a statistic that is off by more than half a century and ignores 47 of 50 states."
--FAIR
quote:
Ronald Reagan was the greatest president of the twentieth century.
Please explain how Reagan is better then FDR? Or Truman? Or JFK?
quote:
Abstinence prevents sexually transmitted disease and pregnancy -every time it's tried.
So do condoms.
quote:
Condoms only work during the school year.
Why?
quote:
Women should not be allowed on juries where the accused is a stud.
See, that's just blatantly sexist. Why isn't there a "men shouldn't be allowed on a jury where the accused is a hottie"?
quote:
The way to improve our schools is not more money, but the reintroduction of moral and spiritual values, as well as the four "R's": reading, 'riting, 'rithmatic, and Rush.
quote:
I am not arrogant.
Did you bother to read the answer to the above question?
quote:
My first 35 Undeniable Truths are still undeniably true.
You mean like the USSR being the greatest threat to U.S. security? You do realize the USSR collapsed, don't you?
quote:
There is a God.
Prove it.
quote:
There is something wrong when critics say the problem with America is too much religion.
How can you look at Jerry Falwell or Pat Buchannen and not agree? When has blind adherence to a fictional deity done anything but brought pain and conflict? I mean, look at Omega's logic in bypassing the Bible to support the "war on terrorism."
quote:
Morality is not defined by individual choice.
So, you'd rather force your morality on me? Fuck you.
quote:
The only way liberals win national elections is by pretending they're not liberals.
Do you forget FDR? He won re-election 3 times, and while you might be able to prove your argument the first time, you'd be hard-pressed to prove that the American people didn't know he was a liberal the next three times. You don't know much about history, do you?
quote:
Feminism was established as to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society.
How can you support this person? Like you, Omega, he's living in another time, when men ruled supreme. Get a clue, boyo.
quote:
Liberals attempt through judicial activism what they cannot win at the ballot box.
Gee, isn't that how George W. Bush got into the White House?
quote:
Too many Americans can't laugh at themselves anymore.
Oh, I laugh at myself a good bit -- but I can't wait to see Omega's response to this.
Now, for some more "Why Rush Limbaugh Is A Big Fat Idiot" ...
***
FAIR quoted Limbaugh from his TV show talking about the Gulf War: "Everybody in the world was aligned with the United States except who? The United States Congress." We pointed out that both houses of Congress had voted to authorize use of force in the Gulf.
Limbaugh singled this out on his radio show as "an example of what they've done in this report": "They claim that I said the only institutions who did not support George Bush in the Gulf War were the United States Congress, the United States House and Senate.... I did say that, and when I said it, it was true."
Good answer--except it's a lie. Limbaugh made the remark on April 18, 1994--more than three years after Congress voted to authorize force.
***
In his book See, I Told You So, Limbaugh issued this invitation: "If you have any doubts about the status of American health care, just compare it with that in other industrialized nations." When we compared the U.S. with other industrialized nations--life expectancy and infant mortality--we found that the U.S. ranked near the bottom on both counts.
Limbaugh felt this was unfair. "Those two areas, those stats have almost nothing to do with the quality of American medical care," he remarked. "All the stats reflect is the epidemic of low-birth weight babies born to teenage and drug-addicted mothers, as well as the large numbers of homicides in American cities and drug-related deaths."
The comment shows how little Limbaugh knows about health care. Infant mortality, far from having "almost nothing to do" with the quality of health care, is closely linked with the availability of prenatal care. The mortality rate for infants whose mothers received little or no prenatal care is almost 10 times that of mothers who received frequent prenatal care, according to figures from the National Center for Health Statistics.
And the Centers for Disease Control estimate that homicide lowers U.S. life expectancy by about three months--which would do almost nothing to improve our rank. (The CDC did not calculate the effects of "drug-related deaths," but since illegal drugs kill far fewer people than homicide, they have even less impact on life expectancy.)
***
Limbaugh tried to pass the buck on his claim that students at Chelsea Clinton's school had to write an essay called "Why I Feel Guilty Being White." It's a silly claim, given that 28 percent of the students at the school are not white. "My source for this story is CBS News," he had originally said. "I am not making this up."
In response to FAIR's report, Limbaugh said, "They say I'm wrong, it never happened, and that I made it up. But my quote was--my source was a CBS News fax, CBS News Service, that was sent to WABC radio in New York, which alerted me to this alleged incident. CBS cited Playboy magazine's February article, 'Unbearable Whiteness of Being,' and Playboy had cited Heterodoxy magazine, September of 1993."
He refined this explanation in his USA Today column, where he now described his source as "CBS Morning Resource, a wire service for radio talk shows run by CBS's radio networks." "Playboy, Heterodoxy, and CBS may well have been wrong," Limbaugh wrote, "but I quoted the story accurately and accurately cited my source."
But the source he had originally cited was CBS News--not CBS Morning Resource, an "infotainment" service. "CBS News never reported such a story," CBS News Vice President Larry Cooper wrote in a letter to USA Today (7/20/94). "Limbaugh's source was actually Playboy magazine. The story, crediting Playboy, was distributed to radio stations via the CBS Radio Morning Resource.... Morning Resource is not associated with CBS News."
Limbaugh reported a false claim and misidentified his source. But to hear Limbaugh tell it, quoting an inaccurate source somehow means that you are accurate. What it really means is that you failed to check out your source.
Heterodoxy, a right-wing tabloid, cited no source for the story, and couldn't remember where they got it from when we called them. But the first reference seems to be a story on Sidwell Friends in City Paper, a D.C. weekly (7/16/93). After rechecking with his (anonymous) source--a parent of a Sidwell student--reporter Paul Gifford now says that the actual title of the essay assigned to one class of 7th and 8th graders was "Should White People Feel Guilty and Why."
***
After FAIR debunked Limbaugh's denials that he encourages political activism by his listeners, he came back with this in his USA Today column: "I don't have 'troops.' I do not encourage listeners to call anybody. In fact, I do just the opposite."
He discourages listeners from making political phone calls? That's not what he did last July 16, when he urged listeners to call the Democratic National Committee to ask who told Hillary to say she tried to go into the military. Or on June 30, when he twice read through a list of U.S. representatives who hadn't signed on to a Limbaugh-endorsed deficit cutting plan, adding coyly: "If you heard your congressman's name--you heard your congressman's name."
Day after day, Limbaugh organized opposition to the pro-Clinton health care caravans. Here he is on July 27: "The new location, for those of you in the Dallas-Ft. Worth metroplex is the Arlington Convention Center. Sometime tomorrow, the health security express will show up at the Arlington Convention Center and have their rally. Now, you know what to do.... Why don't a bunch of people get together and offer for sale home remedies?... And keep in mind that the real snake oil is on these buses. The health security express, due in to the Arlington Convention Center tomorrow."
Of course, there's nothing wrong with media figures encouraging people to get involved politically--as long as commentators across the political spectrum are allowed to do that. But why does Limbaugh have to lie about it?
***
And for more, go here.
I like cheese. Except when it binds me up. Then I have a distinct non-like (& dare I say, devout hatred) of it.
[ October 10, 2001: Message edited by: IDIC ]
There are lies, true lies, and statements made by Republicans.
'Course, that would end up meaning that he's shit, but I don't have a problem w/ that...
"...we have more acreage of forest land in the United States today than we did at the time the Constitution was written..."
Well, no shit! The country's about three or four times bigger now.
"...he had written that there is more forest land in the U.S. today than there was when Columbus first reached the New World..."
Even more obvious. In 1492, the US didn't exist, so it had exactly zero acres of forest. A single tree would be more than that.
"Abstinence prevents sexually transmitted disease and pregnancy -every time it's tried.""So do condoms."
Um... Jeff, if you want to complain about Limbaugh's idiocy, you really should refrain from practicing it yourself.
"Why isn't there a 'men shouldn't be allowed on a jury where the accused is a hottie'?"
Actually, for the most part, there probably should be... :-)
[ October 10, 2001: Message edited by: IDIC ]
quote:
Um... Jeff, if you want to complain about Limbaugh's idiocy, you really should refrain from practicing it yourself.
I speak only from my experience from using condoms, and that is that they work 100% ...
I propose that we keep the defendant outside the courtroom at all times. They would watch the proceedings on closed-circuit TV, with a cellphone link to his or her attorney. No reference would be made to his or her identity during the trial, including race, gender, or religion. But that's just a thought.
I speak only from my experience from using condoms, and that is that they work 100% ...
Hmm... now where did I put those birth control success rate statistics...
While I dig them up, let me say that condoms are NOT 100% sure. Otherwise, we wouldn't be ending up with all these pregnant teenagers. They DO pass out condoms in schools, remember?
See, it's schools teaching blather like that that leads to teenage pregnancies in the first place.
*searches*
"Whichever method of birth control you choose, remember that, aside from abstinence, all birth control methods sometimes fail, even if used properly and consistently."
"Male Condoms
Average Failure Rate: 14%"
quote:
Otherwise, we wouldn't be ending up with all these pregnant teenagers. They DO pass out condoms in schools, remember?
Condoms only work if people use them.
I also said -- I guess you forgot -- that I spoke only from my own experience. Don't you feel silly?
That said, my parents sat me down and talked with me about sex before I heard word one about it in school. Learning about sex didn't make me go out and sleep with every girl I could get my hands on. That said, if the parents do their jobs, then no one will learn anything new in school. And if the parents don't do their jobs, the kids still need the info -- and better to be taught by the school then by their fellow students ("you can't get pregnant the first time you have sex..." and other such nonsense). I've never known a teacher to advocate sex, but making sure kids know how to use a condom is just common sense -- because, believe it or not, they'll be bumping-booty with or without condoms.
quote:
Abstinence prevents sexually transmitted disease and pregnancy -every time it's tried.
So do condoms.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!
Two words: Magic Johnson.
And as I said before -- you really need to start reading, Jeff -- I'm only speaking from my own experience. D'oh!!!!
Saying that condoms work 100% effectively just because you've never had a problem w/ one is absurd. What if Omega said "People never get run over by cars."? You'd tell him how wrong he was. Then he'd say "Well, I'm only speaking from my experience. I've never been run over by a car.". Then you'd rant and rave at him for the next month about how he said something as insane as "people never get run over by cars", then "changed" it after you "proved" that he was wrong.
At least be consistent.
I should've replied with Rush's hipocracy on the issue.
quote:
Limbaugh defines his own term Young Skulls Full of Mush as: ‘‘Young American people after their brains have been pasteurized and filled with multiculturalism, sex advocacy programs, and other twaddle by our failing public school system.’’ But Limbaugh reveals his own supercilious condescension by portraying kids as deciding to have sex with the rationale of simpletons: ‘‘Heck, the school gave me this condom, they know what they’re doing.’’ Apparently Limbaugh doesn’t believe teenagers are at risk of having their minds turned to mush quite so much as he believes that they’re inherently at risk because their minds are already mush.Today’s sex ed is so highly improved compared to that of half a century ago, a time of prudery and repression to which Limbaugh implies we should return. You watch those old b&w health education films of the 40’s and 50’s and on the surface they’re just laugh-ably hokey, but listen to their exact content and you’ll notice they were extremely conforming. They had nothing to do with the actual changes that take place during puberty. Instead they were almost solely a particular group or person’s personal beliefs being objectified into this presentation of what was ‘‘normal, acceptable behavior,’’ as if there were such a clearly discernible thing.
Besides, if people can’t deal with their kids growing up and becoming sexually intimate, then the real problem is their poor parenting and desire to have the schools and society raise their children for them.
[ October 10, 2001: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snay ]
See, this is why we don't take you seriously.
No one takes you seriously. Where have I attacked Herr Limbaugh? I've posted rebuttals (admittedly, by other people) to many things he has passed off as the truth. And I've posted portions of an essay criticizing his apparent stance on pre-marital sex. I mean, no offense here, "buddy", but when people call you on stuff, you just ignore the threads in question. And your stance on religion ... ? "God wants us to do it this way, but we don't have to do it if it's too hard."
You also ignore people when they catch you lying. You imply you didn't call Canada socialist by using Sol's definition of socialist, MIB says you did in an AIM conversation, and you haven't touched the thread with a 10-foot pole since. Here's a link to the thread. Page two. Go, prove me wrong.
Then again, we've also got this thread, where you never responded to Jay's question on the top of the 2nd page.
Now, I posted that for the second time. Originally, it was in the We're Striking Back thread, posted two days ago. Unsurprisingly, you've yet to respond. And you say people don't take me seriously? You got a lot to learn, kiddo.
Oh, yes, I called him a big fat idiot. Then again, I could just be refferring to the book. Hmmm.
[ October 11, 2001: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snay ]
[ October 11, 2001: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snay ]
OK, how 'bout this: does anyone BESIDES Jeff actually care about the subjects he brings up? Since we all know his entire purpose in life has been reduced to attacking me, I'm looking for the opinion of someone who is not so fixated.
And lest there be any confusion, I do mean the ones which he has accused you of avoiding 'with a ten foot pole' in two other threads which he provided links to.
1) Liberals cannot be blamed for every single mess in the world, including the recession, Vietnam War, etc. They make mistakes, but cannot be labelled as lying scum. Repeat after me: there are GOOD Liberals out there.
2) Conservatives are good people. But not perfect. They make mistakes too. They make political blunders. Richard Nixon and Mike Harris are not the only abberations.
3) I watch Biography about Dubya and noted that he appointed a popular DEMOCRAT to one of his major posts when W was Governor of Texas. Politics needs more combinations like this.
4) Liberals DO make some valid points when opposing Conservative policies. Like Conservatives, they have valid concerns, and are not always obsessed with lining their own pockets. On a related Side note, Conservatives here in Ontario approved a 40% raise. Go figure.
5) It is not hell freezing over when Democrats side with Republicans. And Vice Versa.
6) A Conservative who makes a blunder is not automatically defined as a Liberal.
7) Sure the Chinese government is full of shit. But do they deserve to be bombed to hell?
8) Same with the Russians.
9) Beware the Almighty Jeep and his legions of deer.
2-6) True.
7) The government, yes. The people, no. (No, that's Afghanistan. Nobody deserves to be bombed to Hell unless they attack us first.)
8) Russia is beginning to grow up. We should help them.
9) Riight.
What about Jerry Falwell? Isn't he on the Right? And isn't he a Christian Fundamentalist?
I'd rather leave Fundamentalism on its own and not lump it with ANY political affilation.
I also take it that you are blaming liberalism for every BIG mess right? Oy......
[ October 11, 2001: Message edited by: Tahna Los ]
Capitalists think that Chretien is a Socialist Dictator.
Socialists think that Chretien is a Capitalist Pig.
Everyone else doesn't really care, provided that 1) Chretien doesn't stay for a fourth term and 2) Stockwell Day does not EVER come to power.
Not easy to try to straddle two sides of the fence. But inaction on issues that need to be addressed will nip you in the butt all the time.
[ October 11, 2001: Message edited by: Tahna Los ]
As for Canada's socialism, all of what I've said has been true, for varying definitions of socialism. Canada, judging by their policy, believes that socialism might actually work if used in moderation. When talking about dictatorships, I was refering to all-out socialist nations.
I don't know nothin' about the Canadian PM.
As to Jay's question...
But you know what, let's say we build a missile shield. Good, now we stop some ICBM's as they are... where are we stoping them?
Three main possibilities: over the country that fired it, in orbit, or over our country. We don't have any obligation to worry about countries that try to blow us up. In space it's not much of a problem. Over our country, it's better than a direct hit. Of course, depending on the angle of re-entry, it may get blown up over an ocean, but again, better than a direct hit.
Liberals cannot be blamed for every single mess in the world
Only most of them. If every country in the world had minimal government, how many wars would we have seen this century? Any at all? We would also have missed out on the Holocaust and the Soviet and Chinese attrocities. That's about 200 million lives, all total.
More later.
Hitler was not a liberal. So many people have pointed this out to you on so many occasions its amazing how stubborn you are.
quote:
The word has a number of meanings, all of which reflect aspects of liberal thought. These include "favorable to progress and reform, as in religious or political affairs"; "favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties"; "open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc."; and "characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts". [Random House Dictionary of the English Language]. Liberals want to change things to increase personal freedom and tolerance, and are willing to empower government to the extent necessary to achieve those ends.
The above is the recognized definition of "liberal" when it comes to political ideology. Your definition of liberal is someone who builds a "bigger government." Hitler, Mao, Lenin, etc., are liberals only in your own little world.
Yes, Castro is a socialist/Communist Dictator. But that does not imply that All Out Socialist = Dictatorship. Ontario had a Socialist government at one point. Were they labelled Dictators? No. What about the present Conservative government? References to Dictator are being made on Mike Harris.
Only most of them. If every country in the world had minimal government, how many wars would we have seen this century? Any at all? We would also have missed out on the Holocaust and the Soviet and Chinese attrocities. That's about 200 million lives, all total.
That's your opinion. But keep in mind that the Holocaust, Soviet, and Chinese Atrocities were done by AUTHORITARIAN governments. Whether they were left or right, Liberal or Conservative, it has nothing to do with Authoritarianism.
For Chrissakes, go to a Political Science Class, and get a clue. World Politics do not run the way you say they run.
*smacks Jeff for posting his before mine* 
[ October 11, 2001: Message edited by: Tahna Los ]
quote:
It's just that the majority of fools seem to gravitate to Extreme Liberalism... or Fundamentalism.
And extreme conservtism. Fools are everywhere and are easy to spot on the extremes...left and right.
And Omega, while you answered the specific question (which was really rhetorical), you missed the forrest. What I wanted comment on was this:
quote:
Let's make it a multi-national, heck even global effort so that every country in the world is protected from these from rouge ICBMs.
Feel free to reopen the thread to answer....it really doesn't belong here.
And Mr. Snay. At what point in the process of banging one's head against a wall do we figure out that there is nothing to be gained?
Thing is, with various people on these boards, and in the world in general, it is easy to be an ideologue. It is easier to fall back on the harangues of pundits in place of thinking and not feel the world to be be a complicated place.
Omega clearly has no idea what liberal or progressive thought entails. And just as clearly he has made the decision not to find out.
It's easier to insulate than to investigate.
[ October 11, 2001: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
quote:
If every country in the world had minimal government, how many wars would we have seen this century? Any at all?
Let me rephrase that sentence for you, Ommie.
quote:
If every country in the world had minimal religion, how many wars would we have seen this century? Any at all?
Certainly, the number of overzealous fundamentalist fruitcakes (does the name Princip ring a bell?) populating this planet would be a lot smaller. It'd be much harder for them to hide behind religious convictions, in any case.
I suppose you have also conveniently 'forgotten' the fact that liberalism (of which clear definitions exist, by the way - yours isn't one of them) helped establish the stable western governments of today. But you'd rather live under authoritarian rule, wouldn't you?
Shades of grey, Omega, not just black and white.
[ October 12, 2001: Message edited by: IDIC ]
It's all about propaganda, which can come in many forms.
On the other hand, I totally agree with your "rephrasing", just that it does not apply to China. The Soviet Union? I really cannot say. Clearly, more atrocities have to do with ethnic minorities and religion more than anything else. China seems to be the exception.
[ October 11, 2001: Message edited by: Tahna Los ]
I'd say around 90% of them. Both world wars would still have happened. The Soviets would still have killed eighty or ninety million of their own people. Same for the Chinese. Same for Sadaam, and almost every other dictator on the planet.
Jay:
Let's make it a multi-national, heck even global effort so that every country in the world is protected from these from rouge ICBMs
Um... I DID answer that.
Omega clearly has no idea what liberal or progressive thought entails.
I've never quite figured this out: progressive in what direction? Progress towards what, exactly? It's another one of those meaningless terms.
Hitler was not a liberal.
Yes, he was, because he believed in a large government. When you're discussing politics within the US, you need to use terms that apply here to avoid confusion. Hitler may not have been a liberal in the sense that the term was used in 1930's Germany, but he's certainly a liberal by the definitions of 2001 America.
Think about it: the Democrats are liberal. You don't disagree with that, I presume. But the liberals never want to change ANYTHING. Notice how nothing major happened during the Clinton administration without GOP support? Thus the definition of liberal must be different than what you think it is.
A word means what people mean when they say it.
But I notice...
"Liberals want to change things to increase personal freedom and tolerance, and are willing to empower government to the extent necessary to achieve those ends."
The definition is contradictory. They want to increase personal freedom, but they also want to increase the power of the government over people. Impossible. Also stupid, as history has repeatedly shown.
Yes, Castro is a socialist/Communist Dictator. But that does not imply that All Out Socialist = Dictatorship.
Quite correct, it merely implies a still undesirable totalitarian government. I stand corrected.
Ontario had a Socialist government at one point. Were they labelled Dictators? No. What about the present Conservative government? References to Dictator are being made on Mike Harris.
Pick your definition. Liberal and conservative don't mean the same thing in Canada (or pretty well anywhere else) as they have here since ~1930-40.
quote:
Pick your definition. Liberal and conservative don't mean the same thing in Canada (or pretty well anywhere else) as they have here since ~1930-40.
No. Liberal and conservative have fairly similar meanings throughout the Western democratic world, which involve an elaborate and barely-logical distribution of stances on a variety of issues into fairly homogenous camps. No political scientist outside the American right would even attempt to consider liberalism defined by "big government" and conservatism by "small government."
quote:
but he's certainly a liberal by the definitions of 2001 America.
By your definition.
quote:
the Democrats are liberal. You don't disagree with that, I presume.
For the most part, they're more-so then Republicans, but less so then the Green Party.
quote:
Notice how nothing major happened during the Clinton administration without GOP support?
Gee, you don't think it had anything to do with the GOP majority shooting down any and all bills they didn't like, do you? GASP!
quote:
Yes, he was, because he believed in a large government. When you're discussing politics within the US, you need to use terms that apply here to avoid confusion.
*GASP!* Somebody better tell George W. Bush. You may not be aware of this, but he's taken the very liberal (by your definition) step of Federalizing airport/plane security. Or did you miss that?
quote:
The definition is contradictory. They want to increase personal freedom, but they also want to increase the power of the government over people.
Then I guess George W. Bush is a liberal ... or have you failed to notice the power the government has recently gained? Oh, of course, as you already said, you don't care if it doesn't effect you.
But, because you're in desperate need of a real education ...
quote:
Once upon a time (in the 1800s), "liberal" and "libertarian" meant the same thing; both were individualist, distrustful of state power, pro-free-market, and opposed to the entrenched privilege of the feudal and mercantilist system. After 1870, models of of society were being refined in terms of the structural effects of group interaction; the social environment came to be seen as a significant factor in determining the ability of large numbers of people to succeed in attaining their goals (and indeed in determining what those goals were). Libertarians felt that any attempt to solve social problems had to depend on private, voluntary effort, and that modifying social factors would inevitably lead to worse problems. Liberals felt that the problems were too serious to be passively left to chance in this way, and that government should have a role in influencing the social framework within which people act. Economically, liberals came to believe that pure free markets led to systematic abuse, so that a limited amount of regulation was needed; libertarians continued to favour the caveat emptor approach. By this time, conservatives had become comfortable with the free-market, capitalist system, so they joined forces with the libertarians on the economic (though not the social) front.Liberals see the role of government as providing a framework within which individuals can develop their lives and contribute to society. Regulation of private industry is needed to ensure integrity and safety, with respect to customers and workers. Equal opportunity should be a goal, which entails a level of provision to ameliorate the effects of poverty and discrimination. Health care and education should be universally available, since without either, individual choice is severely limited. Liberals do *not* want the government to protect people from themselves, or to interfere in individual interaction, except insofar as to prevent systematic actions that cause harm.
quote:
We would also have missed out on the Holocaust and the Soviet and Chinese attrocities.
::sigh:: Read:
quote:
Communists understand society as interactions of groups, to the extent that they largely ignore the value and effect of individual action. Socialists, while advocating individual rights, see property-owning structures in society as inevitably leading to corruption and the ill-treatment of the poor by the rich. Both groups arose as a reaction to the abuses of capitalists, and so feel that individual acquisitiveness is the primary cause of social injustice and poverty. [This is over-simplified.] Liberals feel that when properly regulated, self-interest is a powerful and useful motivation; it should be harnessed, rather than erased.
All quoted sections referenced from Chris Holt's webpage.
[ October 11, 2001: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snay ]
1. I enjoy Rush Limbaugh because he is entertaining. I think he's quite humorous. Occasionally, I'll find out about some bit of news that happened that the general media either missed or wouldn't report.
2. He is definitely conservative but he is by no means an extremist. To call him a racist sexist bigot is ignorance on your part.
3. He has a listening audience of over 20 million people- the most listened-to radio show in existence. He's gotta be doing something right.
4. I mentioned to one of my professors about Rush's ailment, and thusly a fellow classmate cheered. I can't believe anyone would cheer such a fate.
5. People too often here confuse liberal with "democrat" and conservative with "Republican." There are a great deal of conservative democrats and liberal Republicans. Be careful when flapping these terms about.
That is all.
quote:
1. I enjoy Rush Limbaugh because he is entertaining
Yes, I remember you said he wasn't to be taken seriously.
quote:
He is definitely conservative but he is by no means an extremist. To call him a racist sexist bigot is ignorance on your part.
Not sexist?
"Now I got something for you that's true--1972, Tufts University, Boston. This is 24 years ago--or 22 years ago. Three year study of 5000 co-eds, and they used a benchmark of a bra size of 34C. They found that the--now wait. It's true. The larger the bra-size, the smaller the IQ." (TV show, 5/13/94)
Dr. Burton Hallowell, president of Tufts in the '60s and '70s, had "absolutely no recollection" of such a study, according to Tufts' communications office. "I surely would have remembered that!" he exclaimed. Limbaugh's staff was unable to produce any such study. A search of the Nexis database--while revealing no evidence of a Tufts study--did produce a number of women theorizing that the presence of large breasts caused a lowering of IQ in some males.
Now that we've got "sexist" down, I'll find some "racist" and "bigot" remarks he's made to disprove that. Do you recall by any chance the .sig I had for awhile -- his quote, about women choosing orgasms over brains?
quote:
He has a listening audience of over 20 million people- the most listened-to radio show in existence. He's gotta be doing something right.
Yes, he's making lots of people laugh. He's funnier then Comedy Central. But, hey, no-one's supposed to "take him seriously", remember?
quote:
I mentioned to one of my professors about Rush's ailment, and thusly a fellow classmate cheered. I can't believe anyone would cheer such a fate.
Perhaps they're admiring the irony of someone who blasted the ADA becoming disabled himself. Then again, if Bill Clinton got his penis chopped off, I'd have a hard time believing you wouldn't be a bit happy about it.
quote:
People too often here confuse liberal with "democrat" and conservative with "Republican." There are a great deal of conservative democrats and liberal Republicans. Be careful when flapping these terms about.
Listen and learn, Omega.
quote:
Let's make it a multi-national, heck even global effort so that every country in the world is protected from these from rouge ICBMs.Um... I DID answer that.
Did you? Perhaps you could point me to your stealth answer then.
quote:
I've never quite figured this out: progressive in what direction? Progress towards what, exactly? It's another one of those meaningless terms.
Thank you for proving my point.
quote:
Yes, he was, because he believed in a large government. When you're discussing politics within the US, you need to use terms that apply here to avoid confusion. Hitler may not have been a liberal in the sense that the term was used in 1930's Germany, but he's certainly a liberal by the definitions of 2001 America.
That is, without a doubt, one of the most confused and uneducated passages I've had the pleasure to read. Thank you Omega for bringing a smile to my face and a chuckle to my lips.
I would, however, seek clarification on one or two points.
Hitler was a liberal. Ok, would you care to offer up anything in the way of proof for that statement?
Let me see if I can anticipate a couple of things you might have brought up had you had the time.
Hitler expanded the infulence of the German government to include road building programs. Why did Hitler build roads? To move troops? To further his military aspirations? Heck, even the Romans figured that out. They must have been the most "liberal" bunch in history!
That would certainly make Eisenhower...damn him and those interstate highways.
Military expansion and massive military work projects must therefor be a hallmark of liberalism. As a result, Frederick the Great was a liberal; Alexander the Great was a liberal; Abraham Lincoln was a liberal; Hideki Tojo was a liberal; Charlemagne was a liberal.
But this takes the cake:
quote:
Think about it: the Democrats are liberal. You don't disagree with that, I presume. But the liberals never want to change ANYTHING. Notice how nothing major happened during the Clinton administration without GOP support? Thus the definition of liberal must be different than what you think it is.
Democrats are liberal. Some are. Some are not. But I imagine that's a bit too complicated a way to view the world.
As for not wanting to change anything. *shrug* I would conjecture that you are purposefully not reading and understanding history before posting.
Since it seems that your memory only goes back to Clinton, then you can bring to mind the attempt to change the health care system. As for members of the opposition party working with president....well, that's the system we have isn't it.
[ October 11, 2001: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
I looked through the original SDI thread. I couldn't find where Omega answered it ... maybe he could take the time to do some cutting and pasting?
This is one of those times. I am SOOOOOO sick of 'War of the Definitions.'
So, I wanna smack both the UberConservative and the ArchLiberal. Does that make me a Moderate?
Incidentally, though Omega did not suggest giving the shield to 'all the world,' he did suggest sharing it with all of our allies. That much I remember.
quote:
Originally posted by First of Two:
So, I wanna smack both the UberConservative and the ArchLiberal. Does that make me a Moderate?
No, it makes you the perfect candidate to run in my Common Fucking Sense Party. I'd run myself but A) people who found their own party & are their own candidates are fucking weird (cf. Ross Perot, Ralph Nader, Lowell Weicker), & B) I speak far too much truth & have no time or patience for platitudes.
Jay, you said, let's give the shield to any country that wants to help pay for it, to which I replied, I believe that's the current plan. Go read the thread, would you? It's on the first page, half way down, give or take a post.
Gee, you don't think it had anything to do with the GOP majority shooting down any and all bills they didn't like, do you?
Clinton never PROPOSED anything major. Nothing to save SS or Medicare, for example. All that he proposed was Nafta, et al., which is an external issue, not subject to current US definitions of libereal and conservative. That and his budgets, which slashed the military and hiked funding for social programs.
Somebody better tell George W. Bush. You may not be aware of this, but he's taken the very liberal (by your definition) step of Federalizing airport/plane security.
No, that is NOT liberal, because the federal government gains no new power over anyone's life.
Liberals felt that the problems were too serious to be passively left to chance in this way, and that government should have a role in influencing the social framework within which people act.
BINGO! Liberals think that government is the solution to our problems. Thank you.
Liberals do *not* want the government to protect people from themselves
Coulda fooled me.
Liberals feel that when properly regulated, self-interest is a powerful and useful motivation; it should be harnessed, rather than erased.
Again, give the government power, and it'll fix everything. Read a history book, man, 'cause that's been disproven time and again.
People too often here confuse liberal with "democrat" and conservative with "Republican." There are a great deal of conservative democrats and liberal Republicans.
Yes, but when talking about the democrats, one can also be refering to the democratic party as an institution, which is most certainly liberal.
"Now I got something for you that's true--1972, Tufts University, Boston. This is 24 years ago--or 22 years ago. Three year study of 5000 co-eds, and they used a benchmark of a bra size of 34C. They found that the--now wait. It's true. The larger the bra-size, the smaller the IQ."
Did it ever occur to you that he may have had a bad source?
Here's a game: make a list of all the eronius statements that Rush Limbaugh has made in his career. Eliminate the jokes. The rest are presumably due to bad sources. You wanna know how long that list will be, after a 14-year career, plus some TV and a couple books? About three pages.
See, someone already did that, in a book called "The Way Things Aren't: Rush Limbaugh's Reign of Error". It was already a very small book in all dimensions (we're talking little kiddie size, here), and half the stuff in it was obviously intended as humor. The rest added up to about two real pages of text. Toss in a generous extra page for the years since this was published, and Rush is still far more accurate than most school textbooks out there.
Go ahead. Try it.
I'll find some "racist" and "bigot" remarks he's made
Five bucks. Anyone?
Of course, Jeff has enough bucks, what with that deer-killing machine he rides around in...
Perhaps they're admiring the irony of someone who blasted the ADA becoming disabled himself.
He still won't support the ADA, because it's still a bad federal law.
And it looks like he'll be getting his hearing back, at least in part, BTW. Not that anyone probably cares about the original topic of discussion at this point.
Hitler was a liberal. Ok, would you care to offer up anything in the way of proof for that statement?
Under Hitler, the government gained enormous power over the lives of the people. I'm guessing I won't get any argument over that one.
Stupid Browser crash. I was writing a nice blurb for you to consider.
The Nazis were an Authoritarion Government. Authoritarian Governments have power over people. It has nothing to do with Liberalism or Conservatism.
Liberalism and Conservatism is a collection of economic and social ideas. Taxes, Gun Control, Social Programs, Medicare, The ideas on Chris Holt's site do not mention the size of government, only the fact that the citizens expect the government to make their lives easier. They do not expect the Government to abuse its power and make their lives a living hell.
These ideas are basically the same as your federal government taking over aviation security. Yes, it is the government's constitutional obligation to protect its citizens from threats, but why did this not include Aviation security? (If you say the Democrats or Liberals were responsible, I swear I'll smack you.)
One of the Liberal Ideas here is the Canadian Human Rights Commission, which mediates disputes and allegations of racism, sexism, and other forms of discrimination which prevents the complainant's right to equal service. Bigger government, right? Fine, I'll accept your argument there. But this is an example of how Liberalism is supposed to work. Same with Medicare. The thing is, the CHRC and Medicare ARE NOT instruments of Authoritarianism.
The difference between Chretien and Hitler is that Chretien was given governmental power to help its citizens and give them what they want. Hitler was given governmental power, but abused it to force many of its citizens to live in perpetual hell. Did Hitler have these programs in his government? No. (Human rights during the Holocaust? right) And you still think he is a Liberal?
Omega, I'll tell you straight, if you present these ideas to ANY political science class in ANY university, I will tell you that you will fail miserably. Then of course you will blame it on the Universities being under the power of the "liberal" government.
Finally, from Chris Holt's site, the definition of "Liberalism" was derived from "Libertarianism". Of course, you know what Libertarianism is, so how the hell do you associate Hitler with Liberalism?
To sum it up for your ahem.... thick skull....
Hitler = Authoritarianism.
but Liberalism != Authoritarianism.
[ October 12, 2001: Message edited by: Tahna Los ]
quote:
No, that is NOT liberal, because the federal government gains no new power over anyone's life.
Yes, obviously they do, although your brain-dead self is too stupid or too ignorant to watch the news becuase you're too busy screaming "THOSE LIBERAL BIASED FUCKS!"
Let's see. Stricter security at airports means you have to get to the airport hours in advance of flight, that you're limited in the number of bags you can take onto a flight, etc, etc. How that isn't "power over the people", only the twisted logic of Omega can say.
quote:
Did it ever occur to you that he may have had a bad source?
Maybe he should try and, I don't know, confirm his sources. Right, I forgot, he's not even close to being anymore of a legitimate newsource than Entertainment Tonight is ... he's entertainment!
Now ...
Sexist Statements By Omega's Idol
"Feminism was established to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream."-- Rush Limbaugh, Radio Show, Summer/93
Racist Statements By Rushie-Rushie Should Hushie!
Rush Limbaugh has defended Klan rallys as freedom of assembly. Yet he denounces the Million Mom
March as "the manipulation of the collective American mind" [Rush Limbaugh, 5/15/00]. \
I'm kind of short on time at the moment, mid-terms, you understand. I'll post more later. If you choose, you may make payment of $5 by PayPal to [email protected]. If you do not feel these quotes have made the point that he's sexist and racist, give me some more time.
Feel free to refute the above quotes as best (poorly) as you can.
[ October 12, 2001: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
quote:
Of course, Jeff has enough bucks, what with that deer-killing machine he rides around in...
See, now that was funny.
So was the rest of the post, but in an entirely different way.
Take this for instance:
quote:
Liberals feel that when properly regulated, self-interest is a powerful and useful motivation; it should be harnessed, rather than erased.Again, give the government power, and it'll fix everything. Read a history book, man, 'cause that's been disproven time and again.
So, help me understand here, what is it you are trying to say?
And a clarification, should you want to refer the the Democratic Party, that would be a capitalized. That way we can avoid confusion when you talk about all democrats being liberal.
[ October 13, 2001: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
That said, all I know for sure is that the guy who wrote "Rush Limbaugh is a Big fat Idiot" later went on to star in the hugely successful (laugh) "Stewart Saves His Family."
Frikin' spontaneous reboot. I meant to post six hours ago...
The ideas on Chris Holt's site do not mention the size of government, only the fact that the citizens expect the government to make their lives easier. They do not expect the Government to abuse its power and make their lives a living hell.
Then they need to read more history books, because they should expect exactly that. The government WILL abuse its power, if given enough. This has been seen almost invariably throughout history.
Liberalism and Conservatism is a collection of economic and social ideas. Taxes, Gun Control, Social Programs, Medicare
Yes, and the existance (or not) of those programs varies directly with how much power the government has over you.
Yes, it is the government's constitutional obligation to protect its citizens from threats, but why did this not include Aviation security?
Because no one thought it necessary until now. Of course, to some degree, it depends on the wording of the bill, which I'm not quite clear on. Is the federal government OFFERING to take over airport security? Or are they taking it over, no ifs, ands, or buts? Not that I think anyone's complaining.
One of the Liberal Ideas here is the Canadian Human Rights Commission, which mediates disputes and allegations of racism, sexism, and other forms of discrimination which prevents the complainant's right to equal service.
There is no right to equal service, because implementing such a right would require violation of the right to private property. Again, the government gains more power over your lives, the power to violate your supposedly inviolable rights if it sees fit.
Bigger government, right? Fine, I'll accept your argument there.
Good.
But this is an example of how Liberalism is supposed to work.
Violating the rights of one group (namely, anyone with property) in order to make another group happy? And you claim this as a GOOD thing?
The thing is, the CHRC and Medicare ARE NOT instruments of Authoritarianism.
They can be turned into such with minimal effort. You have too much faith in the goodness of your politicians. We know better.
Omega, I'll tell you straight, if you present these ideas to ANY political science class in ANY university, I will tell you that you will fail miserably.
We'll see about that next year. I'll tell you how it goes.
Finally, from Chris Holt's site, the definition of "Liberalism" was derived from "Libertarianism".
Yeah, I just read about this one in a book on exegetical fallicies: what a word might have meant at one time may have nothing at all to do with what it means now.
Liberalism != Authoritarianism.
Not what I'm saying. I'm saying:
liberalism = larger, more powerful government -> authoritarianism
Which part do you disagree with?
Stricter security at airports means you have to get to the airport hours in advance of flight, that you're limited in the number of bags you can take onto a flight, etc, etc. How that isn't "power over the people", only the twisted logic of Omega can say.
Existing power that simply wasn't excersized. Unlike hotels and the other garbage you've claimed in the past, air flight DOES come under the aegis of interstate commerce. Thus, the federal government has, and always has had, the authority to pass laws regarding the operation and contents of airliners, and the authority to enforce such laws by whatever means it sees fit.
Right, I forgot, he's not even close to being anymore of a legitimate newsource than Entertainment Tonight is ... he's entertainment!
Entertainment that's more accurate than most school textbooks. That's some good entertainment.
Find me a news source that's made FEWER mistakes, on average, than Limbaugh, and you might have a point.
"Feminism was established to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream."
It was. Notice he's not saying that this was a bad thing. Rush, here, is commiting the cardinal sin of oversimplification. Consider: back when sexism was running rampant, whenever you want to say that that was, the attractive women could get what they wanted through the men. The attractively-impaired women, however, had more difficulty. Thus, they needed a collective voice to get into the "mainstream of society", ie men's jobs and positions. Something like a union. Feminism. Thus you can legitimately say that feminism was created to give unattractive women access to mainstream society, and be correct.
Rush Limbaugh has defended Klan rallys as freedom of assembly.
Um... no. I think you mean that he's defended their RIGHT to freedom of assembly, which is totally different from defending them in general. "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
Yet he denounces the Million Mom March as "the manipulation of the collective American mind"
You got a more comprehensive quote on that?
Further,
a) there were only a tenth of that number involved in the march
b) I do seem to recall that their propaganda was quite... eroneus, but I can recall no specific instances. More research is required. Stand by.
Me: [/i]Again, give the government power, and it'll fix everything. Read a history book, man, 'cause that's been disproven time and again.[/i]
Jay: So, help me understand here, what is it you are trying to say?
Simply that you should never give the government more power than it absolutely needs, because power almost invariably corrupts, especially over long periods of time.
And a clarification, should you want to refer the the Democratic Party, that would be a capitalized. That way we can avoid confusion when you talk about all democrats being liberal.
Noted for future reference.
But more often than not the conservative judges on the Supreme Court would strike down such legislation that they felt impeded upon states rights and property/big-business. One of the best examples is Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918) in which a conservative court struck down a law restricting child labor since it was an exercise of power that Congress didn't have and that it was unfair to impose such regulations upon businesses. Of course today, no one would ever question a law restricting child labor. But it does show that sometimes conservatism can go too far just as liberalism can.
Or more recently if an old case doesn't whet your whistle. US v. Lopez ('95) struck down the Gun Free School Zone Act. The conservative court under Rehnquist, felt that Congress shouldn't have the power under the commerce clause to regulate whether or not guns can be regulated within a school zone. It was, of course, extremely controvesial not only because of the touchy subject matter, but because it was a slight break of precedence set since the New Deal. However, it was an example of a somewhat liberal act being struck down by a conservative court because they feel the Government was too strong. But I doubt any one would say that the act was meant to oppress the people.
Okay, i'm ready to be ripped apart now for misreading or misquoting something because I probably have.
quote:
"Feminism was established to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream."
quote:
It was.
You really don't have a f*ckin' clue, do you? Feminism was established to ensure equal rights for males and females. Start reading some history.
quote:
Entertainment that's more accurate than most school textbooks.
That says a lot about American education, and not much about RL's 'entertainment' (both are absolute crap IMNSVHO).
quote:
Liberalism != Authoritarianism.
quote:
Not what I'm saying. I'm saying: liberalism = larger, more powerful government -> authoritarianism.
Note that Tahna said liberalism DOESN'T equal authoritarianism. You just indicated that you meant to say the opposite, i.e. that it DOES. Please let us know how it goes at that university...
quote:
Then they need to read more history books, because they should expect exactly that. The government WILL abuse its power, if given enough.
And the skies are just full of criminals, aren't they? I'd like to see you deal with total anarchy, since that is the situation you seem to prefer. Deal with it, Ommie.
quote:
You have too much faith in the goodness of your politicians.
While you seem hell-bent on this 'big bad government' obession of yours. Read the following very carefully:
Social programs, gun control, healthcare, etc !=Authoritarianism. Got that?
[ October 13, 2001: Message edited by: IDIC ]
[ October 13, 2001: Message edited by: IDIC ]
quote:
You really don't have a f*ckin' clue, do you? Feminism was established to ensure equal rights for males and females. Start reading some history.
Yeah, and history books teach us that the Civil War was fought over slavery.
quote:
Main Entry: fem�i�nism
Pronunciation: 'fe-m&-"ni-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1895
1 : the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
But ofcourse, you knew that already.
USS: Yes...
However, it was an example of a somewhat liberal act being struck down by a conservative court because they feel the Government was too strong. But I doubt any one would say that the act was meant to oppress the people.
Depends on the wording of the law, of which I'm not sure. If I recall correctly, however, it stated that no one can have a firearm within something like 100 yards of any public school. That infringes on the rights of the states and counties. What if the county decides that they want all their teachers to be armed, and try that for a while? Dependant on state laws, that's their right, the school being a county institution, no?
Power's something of a zero-sum game. The more the federal government has, the less someone else has.
You really don't have a f*ckin' clue, do you? Feminism was established to ensure equal rights for males and females.
Did you read the rest of my explaination? Apparently not.
Note that Tahna said liberalism DOESN'T equal authoritarianism. You just indicated that you meant to say the opposite
No, I didn't. -> and = are totally different symbols.
I'd like to see you deal with total anarchy, since that is the situation you seem to prefer.
What, an all-powerful government and anarchy are the only possible situations? *L*
Social programs, gun control, healthcare, etc != Authoritarianism.
Social programs, gun contrl, healthcare, etc. = more powerful federal government -> authoritarianism
Got that?
"I think this reason why girls don't do well on multiple choice tests goes all the way back to the Bible, all the way back to Genesis, Adam and Eve. God said, 'All right, Eve, multiple choice or multiple orgasms, what's it going to be?' We all know what was chosen" - Rush Limbaugh, Feb. 23, 1994.
quote:
Originally posted by Omega:
Depends on the wording of the law, of which I'm not sure. If I recall correctly, however, it stated that no one can have a firearm within something like 100 yards of any public school. That infringes on the rights of the states and counties.
That it does, but then law is flexible and the Constitution even more so. Its an infringement by the standards of Rehnquist and others but not by others. Hell, the same clause used as a justification above was used by the Federal Government to enforce the Civil Rights Act of 196-(i forget the exact year). In several cases, the court (a very liberal one under Warren) used the commerce clause to prevent businesses from discriminating against blacks. In the strict almost Jeffersonian sense of the Constitution, it was most definately an invasion of States rights. But of course, it was needed. The states, and I mean Alabama, etc wouldn't have done diddly squat to prevent discrimination against blacks. At that point in time, the stronger central government was needed to protect the individual from states and local influences. Its just a case where sometimes the states just aren't going to do the right thing. Of course, today it would have been struck down and minorities would continue to have been discriminated in American restaurants and hotels.
Law is such a gray area of study. It is VERY difficult to say AND prove that only a liberal or conservative interpretation of the government is correct.
And Omega, you are definately correct that too strong of a central government is a distinct danger in many nations including our own. However, it must be understood that too weak of one is just as dangerous. Neither Liberals nor Conservatives are out there trying to ruin lives. Both are working towards what they feel is best for the country.
See, that's called facism. "Do what's necessary, and screw the law."
The states, and I mean Alabama, etc wouldn't have done diddly squat to prevent discrimination against blacks.
No government has any right to prevent privite discrimination against anyone. We've been over this.
Of course, today it would have been struck down and minorities would continue to have been discriminated in American restaurants and hotels.
You think that that law stopped discrimination by private institutions? Barry Goldwater said at the time, "You can't legistlate morality." Now liberals have twisted that phrase, as they're wont to do, but what he originally meant was that no matter how many laws you pass, you're not going to change peoples minds and hearts. Discrimination stopped when people decided it was wrong, and not a second before.
Under any circumstances, right or wrong, useful or no, the government STILL didn't have the authority to do what it did, and it was STILL violating the rights of property owners. Nothing changes those simple facts.
However, it must be understood that too weak of one is just as dangerous.
We got along quite well under the US constitution, before the New Deal came along. The only problem was mismanagement by the federal reserve, which caused the depression of the thirties. Bad laws will do that under any system. Seems like the optimum arrangement to me.
Both are working towards what they feel is best for the country.
You can never be sure of that. Power corrupts, remember?
Good. At least I'm not the only one with the murderous urge to toss my computer out a 9th storey window.
Yes, and the existance (or not) of those programs varies directly with how much power the government has over you.
Government programs? Infrastructure programs for cities? What about Airline Security? They are government programs, right?
Then they need to read more history books, because they should expect exactly that. The government WILL abuse its power, if given enough. This has been seen almost invariably throughout history.
Have you noticed that these authoritarian governments were formed by real nutcases rather than normal people? Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Pinochet, Milosevic. It's the person in power who causes these problems. Oh and by the way, if you say that Pinochet was a liberal, I'll smack you again.
There is no right to equal service, because implementing such a right would require violation of the right to private property. Again, the government gains more power over your lives, the power to violate your supposedly inviolable rights if it sees fit.
The right to equal service is enshrined in our Constitution (read OURS, not yours). Canada as a multicultural society will do everything in its power, not beyond, to make all services available to ANYONE, not a small elite group of people that you appear to cherish.
Good.
I said I'll accept your argument. I didn't say I was going to follow it.
Violating the rights of one group (namely, anyone with property) in order to make another group happy? And you claim this as a GOOD thing?
Say that to the middle-class black people turned away from renting a condo only because they are black. Oh, their rights were never violated.... right?
I suppose you equate Racism with the First Amendment, right?
They can be turned into such with minimal effort.
How can an institution dedicated to promoting human rights and an institution dedicated to providing equal access to health care be turned into Authoritarian institutions with LITTLE effort? Doing so is virtually impossible.
And while we're at it, the Military can be used to turn into authoritarian regimes with minimal effort. Look at the armies of Hitler, Milosevic and Pinochet (if you say Pinochet was a Liberal again, I'll smack you twice, and even harder).
The FBI, CIA, Secret Service, Military, Coast Guard, and the DEA are more likely to be converted into Authoritarian regimes than a Human Rights Commission and Medicare. They are the enforcers (Note, the CHRC NEVER enforces anything. If they do come across a violation, they go to the courts for a resolution).
We'll see about that next year. I'll tell you how it goes.
Good Luck. I expect you to post your grades next year. And please, share your essays with us ALONG with what your Political Science instructor says.
liberalism = larger, more powerful government -> authoritarianism
1) Larger != more powerful.
2) Larger !-> Authoritarian.
At least I'm not the only one with the murderous urge to toss my computer out a 9th story window.
"Why does my computer hate me, round six..."
Have you noticed that these authoritarian governments were formed by real nutcases rather than normal people? Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Pinochet, Milosevic. It's the person in power who causes these problems.
How 'bout Lenin? He was half-way sane. Yet the people gave him too much power, and look what happened to them. Millions dead as a direct result. You name people who formed governments. Sure, Mao formed the Chinese government, and Stalin helped form the Soviet, but they weren't running things forever. There were four other major Soviet premiers after Stalin, all just as opressive, if not as flat-out evil. Two Chinese presidents since Mao, same deal. The problem isn't the guy running things, it's the fact that he can do whatever he wants. Power corrupts.
Name five good dictatorships anywhere on Earth right now. Absolute government power is bad, regardless of who's running it. The more power the government has, the more likely it becomes that that power will become absolute.
The right to equal service is enshrined in our Constitution
See, this is why I live here, and not in Canada. I LIKE to know that I'm not going to have my property confiscated, because my right to it is enshined. You don't have that guarentee, because your right to private property is not enshrined.
not a small elite group of people that you appear to cherish.
Excuse me?
Say that to the middle-class black people turned away from renting a condo only because they are black. Oh, their rights were never violated.... right?
Right.
I suppose you equate Racism with the First Amendment, right?
Well, let's see. Racism is a belief. Various ammendments say that the government can not discriminate against people based upon their beliefs. So, yeah, I do.
And while we're at it, the Military can be used to turn into authoritarian regimes with minimal effort.
Depends on the commanders, and the existing government structure. Civilian authority is paramount.
The FBI, CIA, Secret Service, Military, Coast Guard, and the DEA are more likely to be converted into Authoritarian regimes than a Human Rights Commission and Medicare.
The HRC and Medicare are symptoms of the "regime". The entities you listed would be the enforcers (well, not the CIA, since it's purely external, but the point remains). I'm not saying that the HRC IS the "regime". Simply that the existence of such a body is an indicator of the amount of power the government has over you.
How can an institution dedicated to promoting human rights and an institution dedicated to providing equal access to health care be turned into Authoritarian institutions with LITTLE effort?
Well, as above, the HRC is simply a symptom, not the "regime" itself. The point is, you've given your government the power to violate your right to property as it sees fit. That means that it already HAS the power to do pretty well anything it wants to you. It simply hasn't exercized it yet.
Private property is the guarantor of all your rights. You have no freedom of worship if the government owns your church building, nor freedom of press if the press is not yours.
Good Luck.
Thank you.
I expect you to post your grades next year. And please, share your essays with us ALONG with what your Political Science instructor says.
Will do.
Fine. But larger does not mean pervasive (or do you mean invasive). Larger governments can be less invasive towards lifestyle. I fail to see how HRC, Medicare, and other government infrastructure programs are invasive.
See, this is why I live here, and not in Canada. I LIKE to know that I'm not going to have my property confiscated, because my right to it is enshined. You don't have that guarentee, because your right to private property is not enshrined.
I believe our Property is also enshrined, and Property is never confiscated in our constitution. I need to ask, are there property taxes in the States?
Speaking of which, doesn't your government expropriate land from others to build government buildings?
However, if you are providing a service, you are obligated to serve all citizens of society.
Ya know, I bet the issue of property is your biggest beef with the government......
Name five good dictatorships anywhere on Earth right now. Absolute government power is bad, regardless of who's running it. The more power the government has, the more likely it becomes that that power will become absolute.
1) Who said there was such thing as a good Dictatorship *gags First of Two*?
2) Absolute government IS bad.
3) I say again, larger government does not mean more power.
Well, as above, the HRC is simply a symptom, not the "regime" itself. The point is, you've given your government the power to violate your right to property as it sees fit.
Fine, so are the infrastructure programs, National Airline Security, NASA, etc. etc. etc.
Under the laws that brought out the HRC and Medicare, they are supposed to be arms-length agencies with minimal influence from government. Even the government does not escape the HRC if it is found to be participating in discrimination one way or the other. It has happened before.
I don't see how PERSONAL property is violated in this case. The HRC does not confiscate property if it finds you participated in discriminatory affairs. Under the law, the worst it can do is a monetary settlement that isn't even worth much (5-6 digit figure?). If you want more money, you'll have to pursue the matter yourself, WITHOUT the HRC's support.
Depends on the commanders, and the existing government structure. Civilian authority is paramount.
Same in the case of the HRC and Medicare.
Say that to the middle-class black people turned away from renting a condo only because they are black. Oh, their rights were never violated.... right?
Right.
Please explain.
It is clear that Canada's constitution allows all citizens access to all services (private or public), and no citizen shall be denied access due to discriminatory reasons. As for US's constitution? well.....
You may not like the idea of living in Canada for this reason, but I do. I expect to walk into a West Indian Store to buy some spiced Chick Peas and not get harassed out of the store. And if I opened my own Chinese restaurant, I wouldn't care less about who comes in provided that they 1) eat, 2) pay for it, and 3) leave me a good tip.
[ October 13, 2001: Message edited by: Tahna Los ]
It is clear that Canada's constitution allows all citizens access to all services (private or public), and no citizen shall be denied access due to discriminatory reasons.
Which is totally contradictory to the concept of private property. The concept of private property, by definition, is that if I own something, I can do whatever I please with it, be that give it away, hoarde it, trade it for goods or services, or burn it. So long as I am not harming someone else, I can do whatever I please. And if that means chosing not to give money to certain persons in exchange for whatever good or service, even for an incredibly stupid reason, that's my right, too, by the definition of private property.
This anti-discrimination law impairs my right to do with my property what I please. It thereby takes control of that property away from me to a degree. Control IS ownership, regardless of what any papers might say. Therefore, a government that does not allow discrimination in private matters violates the private property rights of any involved party.
And before you ask, no, discrimination does not constitute harm. Harm is defined as injury to one's person, or damage to or impairment of the value of one's property. Discrimination does neither of these things.
I don't see how PERSONAL property is violated in this case. The HRC does not confiscate property if it finds you participated in discriminatory affairs.
Lack of control is effective confiscation, as above.
Ya know, I bet the issue of property is your biggest beef with the government...
Yup. Socialism, in its purest form, requires that the government own everything. Thus, no private property, thus no way to guarntee that you won't be opressed. Any government regulation on private property beyond its use to do direct harm is a step towards that failed system.
I fail to see how HRC, Medicare, and other government infrastructure programs are invasive.
HRC, or rather the constitutional clause that provides its authority, interferes with the rights of property owners to the free exercize of their property. Medicare simply leads to massive taxes, as well as (depending on the system) interfering with private practitioners. How much do you pay in taxes to cover your free health care? How much more money would you have, and therefore power to persue your own goals, if you didn't have to pay those taxes?
I need to ask, are there property taxes in the States?
On most local and some state levels. Why? ALL taxes are, strictly speaking, property confiscation, not just property taxes.
Speaking of which, doesn't your government expropriate land from others to build government buildings?
You mean steal? No. They buy it at full market value (or higher) and if they don't, large stinks occur. It's relatively rare that anyone doesn't agree to sell for the price they're offered. One example, though, is that some idiot three blocks down from me was offered probably twice what his house was worth for his land, so they could build a library there. He didn't sell, God only knows why. So they built the thing three blocks further away, in a flood plain. But they didn't steal his house, by any means.
However, if you are providing a service, you are obligated to serve all citizens of society.
No, because it's your labor, and your property.
quote:
Originally posted by Omega:
Name five good dictatorships anywhere on Earth right now. Absolute government power is bad, regardless of who's running it. The more power the government has, the more likely it becomes that that power will become absolute.
I can name one, Singapore
Lee Kwan Yew's strong armed tactics could be considered a dictatorship. The laws in Singapore are extremely harsh, but then crime-rate is extremely low. Furthermore, Lee helped raise the average income of the Singaporean from 200 dollars or so to nearly 30,000 dollars. That's one of the highest in the world.
Don't quote me on the exact figures please. I'm estimating.
quote:
Originally posted by Omega:
This anti-discrimination law impairs my right to do with my property what I please. It thereby takes control of that property away from me to a degree. Control IS ownership, regardless of what any papers might say. Therefore, a government that does not allow discrimination in private matters violates the private property rights of any involved party.
Okay, let me ask you this. The government imposes regulations on businesses all the time. Health codes, etc. etc. etc. How is this different? Isn't the government impeding on your property rights to do with as you please?
Or another example. You HAVE to pay your employees minimum wage. Isn't this impeding on your right to pay your employees whatever the hell you want? Why is discrimination so different.
quote:
Originally posted by Omega:
In the strict almost Jeffersonian sense of the Constitution, it was most definately an invasion of States rights. But of course, it was needed.See, that's called facism. "Do what's necessary, and screw the law."
Okay, here's the thing. As you can see, it is an invasion in the Jeffersonian strict construction/conservative way. BUT of course that is not the only way to look at it. That's the thing about law. Its so difficult to take an extreme and stick with it, because someone always has another view that has its own merits. It may not be wrong. I mean look at Marshall. He is perhaps one of the most celebrated men in US history. He established a strong judicial branch and enhanced the power of the federal government. Does that make him a fascist? It is his basic ideas of a strong central government, which he establishes in part by allowing a broad defination of interstate commerce in Gibbons v. Ogden. "Liberals" as you call it would trace their ideas of a strong congress to Marshall. Is he simply wrong? Why is he so admired then?
However, when it comes to my own opinions on the CRA cases of the 1960s, I do feel that Congres and the courts overstepped their bounds a little bit. Hardly fascism, but it was definately a stretch NOT a break of the Interstate Commerce Clause.
quote:
See, this is why I live here, and not in Canada.
No, you live here because you were born here. If you lived in Canada at your age, it's a good bet it would be because you were born there ... (idiot!)
quote:
Well, let's see. Racism is a belief. Various ammendments say that the government can not discriminate against people based upon their beliefs.
So, that justifies it all, doesn't it? Let's see...
1). Government may not discriminate
2). Freedom of speech, freedom of religion
In other words, that makes you a racist too. You fully support the government and its laws, thus you condone the continued existence of racism. Never mind that black people are brutally slaughtered, as long as it's in the almighty constitution, you support it. Short-sighted and egotistical.
[ October 14, 2001: Message edited by: IDIC ]
How does that follow? Remember, "I do not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." How is this such a difficult concept to grasp? I do NOT condone racism, but neither will I allow any attempts to eliminate it by any government, because a) that's impossible, because you can't legislate morality, and b) the attempt would, by nature, lead to the creation of thought police. Thus it would not achieve its stated goal, but would affect the rest of us. Read: BAD IDEA.
Never mind that black people are brutally slaughtered
Excuse me? Brutally slaughtered?
Oh, you're talking about that guy that was dragged to death a few years back. Name one law that could possibly have prevented that, please. THEN you might have a point, but not a second before.
So, that justifies it all, doesn't it? Let's see...
1). Government may not discriminate
2). Freedom of speech, freedom of religion
In other words, that makes you a racist too.
That's a total non sequitor. Complete gibberish.
Again, this is why I like Canadian liberals (yes, by my definition, so let's not get into that again): they can express their thoughts rationally, and without resorting to unfounded personal attacks.
USS:
Lee Kwan Yew's strong armed tactics could be considered a dictatorship. The laws in Singapore are extremely harsh, but then crime-rate is extremely low. Furthermore, Lee helped raise the average income of the Singaporean from 200 dollars or so to nearly 30,000 dollars.
Oh, yes, of course. The average quality of life went up in the USSR and China after their respective revolutions, too, but that doesn't make up for the tens of millions dead. It's also important HOW the changes were made.
Okay, let me ask you this. The government imposes regulations on businesses all the time. Health codes, etc. etc. etc. How is this different?
It isn't. The federal government doesn't have that right, either, nor can it issue a minimum wage. See, that's what we have unions for: to negotiate good wages and working conditions as a PRIVATE MATTER between employer and employee. It's none of the government's business, so long as a contract isn't violated.
"Liberals" as you call it would trace their ideas of a strong congress to Marshall. Is he simply wrong? Why is he so admired then?
Why is FDR so admired? JFK's an even better example: the man did exactly NOTHING of legislative value during his term except cut taxes, and yet he's still dearly loved, and people like Bill Clinton base entire careers on emulating him. (Which might explain why Clinton ALSO did nothing, but that's a different topic. )
Anyway, your answer: probably because people simply don't know any better. 
Of course, it's also possible that only liberals admire him, because he created their entire flawed philosophy, or that other people admire him for totally different reasons. Lots of possibilities.
quote:
Originally posted by Omega:
[QB} Lee Kwan Yew's strong armed tactics could be considered a dictatorship. The laws in Singapore are extremely harsh, but then crime-rate is extremely low. Furthermore, Lee helped raise the average income of the Singaporean from 200 dollars or so to nearly 30,000 dollars.Oh, yes, of course. The average quality of life went up in the USSR and China after their respective revolutions, too, but that doesn't make up for the tens of millions dead. It's also important HOW the changes were made.
{QB]
Gee, last time I checked, Singapore hasn't had millions of its people slaughtered. A couple of sore bottoms, but that's hardly the same thing now is it. My father grew up in Singapore, if Lee was going about killing his people, I doubt he'd be as admired by Singaporeans as he is. So comparing Singapore to USSR or China is hardly a valid choice.
quote:
Originally posted by Omega:
Okay, let me ask you this. The government imposes regulations on businesses all the time. Health codes, etc. etc. etc. How is this different?It isn't. The federal government doesn't have that right, either, nor can it issue a minimum wage. See, that's what we have unions for: to negotiate good wages and working conditions as a PRIVATE MATTER between employer and employee. It's none of the government's business, so long as a contract isn't violated.
But unions were pretty useless until the Government gave them the right to form in the Wagner Act during the New Deal. Early unions like the Knights of Labor rarely lasted very long for lack of support and even the AF of L suffered during the early 20th and late 19th centuries. They'd of course win the occasional battle, but big business is simply too strong. But i suppose you'll say trustbusting wasn't a right of the governments either.
quote:
"How do you tell a Communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin."
Uhhh ... have you even read this quote? Anyone who reads Marx and Lenin are Communists? Sorry, but how can anyone understand the writings (by Reagan's mind anyway) without first reading them? So, what you've got are anti-Communists who are Communists? I mean, c'mon ...
There's no need to prove anything, we were choosen to be "the best country to live in" FIVE FREAKIN' YEARS IN A ROLL by the U.N.!! This means that Canada are doing super at every single angle of society!
So, do I, as a Canadian listen to the same opinion shared by billions of billions of voices all around the world, or one puny voice from a hardcore conservative person living in the U.S.
The choice is obvious!
[ October 14, 2001: Message edited by: BlueElectron ]
"How do you tell a Blink fan? Somebody who listens to Blink. How do you tell an anti-Blink person? Somebody who understands Blink."
Well, you get the idea.
(And BlueElectron, some would make the same argument about listening to the billions who say there is a God)
[ October 14, 2001: Message edited by: OnToMars ]
quote:
we were choosen to be "the best country to live in" FIVE FREAKIN' YEARS IN A ROLL by the U.N.!! This means that Canada are super at every single angle of society! So, do I, as a Canadian listen to the same opinion shared by billions of billions of voices all around the world, or one puny voice from a hardcore conservative person living in the U.S.
Nope, doesn't mean that at all. Firstly, the U.N. isn't 'billions of voices,' it's a hundred or so folks, half of whom hate the US, and most of the rest of whom are Moderate-to-Diehard Socialists. These are also the people who have SUDAN a place on the Human Rights Board. PLEASE. That doesn't engender confidence in their logical thought processes.
Getting voted 'Best Place to Live in' by the U.N. is kinda like getting voted 'Most Inoccuous.'
quote:
You think that that law stopped discrimination by private institutions?
As soon as it no longer pays to discriminate, they change. Laws, lawsuits and fines. When a private company does something illegal, yup, that will stop 'em sure as shootin.
quote:
The states, and I mean Alabama, etc wouldn't have done diddly squat to prevent discrimination against blacks.No government has any right to prevent privite discrimination against anyone.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Its just a case where sometimes the states just aren't going to do the right thing. Of course, today it would have been struck down and minorities would continue to have been discriminated in American restaurants and hotels.
Under any circumstances, right or wrong, useful or no, the government STILL didn't have the authority to do what it did, and it was STILL violating the rights of property owners. Nothing changes those simple facts.
As usual, the above statements are wild speculations and also as usual have no documentation as foundation and are full of errors. Afterall, the question asked about a state...such as Alabama. Here, allow me to point the this in the right direction.
quote:
Amendment 14Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Part of the 14th Amendment is known as the Equal Protection Clause.
A state can not act as an instrument of discrimination as many sates of the South did. The Federal Government has the right and the duty to step in in such cases as say state sponsored segregation.
quote:
They especially needed protection against unfriendly action in the States where they were resident. It was in view of these considerations the Fourteenth Amendment was framed and adopted. It was designed to assure to the colored race the enjoyment of all the civil rights that under the law are enjoyed by white persons, and to give to that race the protection of the general government, in that enjoyment, whenever it should be denied by the States. It not only gave citizenship and the privileges of citizenship to persons of color, but it denied to any State the power to withhold from them the equal protection of the laws, and authorized Congress to enforce its provisions by appropriate legislation. To quote the language used by us in the Slaughter-House Cases, 'No one can fail to be impressed with the one pervaiding purpose found in all the amendments, lying at the foundation of each, and without which none of them would have been suggested,-we mean the freedom of the slave race, the security and firm establishment of that freedom, and the protection of the newly made freeman and citizen from the oppressions of those who had formerly exercised unlimited dominion over them.' So again: 'The existence of laws in the States where the newly emancipated negroes resided, which discriminated with gross injustice and hardship against them as a class, was the evil to be remedied, and by it [the Fourteenth Amendment] such laws were forbidden. If, however, the States did not conform their laws to its requirements, then, by the fifth section of the article of amendment, Congress was authorized to enforce it by suitable legislation.' And it was added, 'We doubt very much whether any action of a State, not directed by way of discrimination against the negroes, as a class, will ever be held to come within the purview of this provision.'If this is the spirit and meaning of the amendment, whether it means more or not, it is to be construed liberally, to carry out the purposes of its framers. It ordains that no State shall make or enforce any laws which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States (evidently referring to the newly made citizens, who, being citizens of the United States, are declared to be also citizens of the State in which they reside). It ordains that no State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, or deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws
Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303 (1879
And corporations are creations of a State. As such:
quote:
The Constitution does not guarantee the unrestricted privilege to engage in a business or to conduct it as one pleases. Certain kinds of business may be prohibited; and the right to conduct a business, or to pursue a calling, may be conditioned. Regulation of a business to prevent waste of the state's resources may be justified. And statutes prescribing the terms upon which those conducting certain businesses may contract, or imposing terms if they do
enter into agreements, are within the state's competency.
Nebbia v. People of State of New York, 291 U.S. 502 (1934)
In the above, the Court clearly concluded that business is open to regulation. And the Civil Rights Act of 1964 takes advantage of such. It reads:
quote:
To enforce the constitutional right to vote, to confer jurisdiction upon the district courts of the United States to provide injunctive relief against discrimination in public accommodations, to authorize the Attorney General to institute suits to protect constitutional rights in public facilities and public education, to extend the Commission on Civil Rights, to prevent discrimination in federally assisted programs, to establish a Commission on Equal Employment Opportunity, and for other purposes.
[ October 15, 2001: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
A state can not act as an instrument of discrimination as many sates of the South did.
Of course. No one's arguing about state-sponsored segregation. We're talking about private discrimination.
The Constitution does not guarantee the unrestricted privilege to engage in a business or to conduct it as one pleases.
The Consitution doesn't guarentee that I have a right to put my feet on my desk. I have my feet on my desk at this very moment, and I doubt anyone will argue that I do not have that right. Look at the ninth ammentment some time.
In the above, the Court clearly concluded that business is open to regulation.
The court was wrong. This is where the tenth ammendment comes into play: if the Constitution doesn't say the government can do it, the government CAN'T do it. Simple as that.
And corporations are creations of a State.
No, they're not. They're creations of a number of people who gather together in a single endevour.
Look, Jay, you can call up all the eronius court ruling and laws all you want, and it won't change anything. Under the United States Constitution, which like it or not IS the law, the government can not discriminate against people based on their beliefs. That INCLUDES racism. That means that the government can not restrict someone's rights to private property because of a choice to discriminate. That is, quite simply, the restriction of someone's rights for the express reason that they believe a certain thing. That can not be justified.
Hope this sums it up.
Do you dispute the idea that the Military can be a symptom of Authoritarian Thinking? Hitler had his SS, Pinochet had his Caravan of Death. Etcetera.
My point? If you want to refer to the idea of the HRC as a symptom of authoritarian thinking, fine. I will push to you the idea that the military is also a symptom of authoritarian thinking, and is more likely to be as such than the HRC which, compared to the military, has very little power.
You have a hijacked jet with terrorists on board. The Military now has the authority to shoot down that jet if is poses a threat to a populated area. Okay, so you're protecting a populated area, but the killing of innocent people by the military is itself pretty damn authoritarian if you ask me (assuming no threat to a populated area is possible). And it robs the innocent people of their right to private property, that is, their lives. Please tell me how you would explain this.
I have much more to challenge you, Omega. I'll be posting later.
[ October 15, 2001: Message edited by: Tahna Los ]
quote:
And corporations are creations of a State.No, they're not.
Based on what, your fervent hope that it's just not so?
The Constitution is the law...for that single point at least I'm glad to see you understand. Amendments to the Constitution place restrictions on discrimination based on public accommodation even for private people.
The Court has never said (and please for the love of Mike, will you capitalize the Supreme Court the way it's supposed to be) that you in your racist zeal can hate people with brown eyes till your gristled little heart collapses in bile. It has said, however, that in certain cases of public accommodation, that you can not.
quote:
Therefore, in order to reach the actions of individuals, Congress, using its power to regulate interstate commerce, enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1964 under. Discrimination based on "race, color, religion, or national origin" in public establishments that had a connection to interstate commerce or was supported by the state is prohibited. See 42 U.S.C. � 2000a. Public establishments include places of public accommodation (e.g., hotels, motels, trailer parks), restaurants, gas stations, bars, taverns, and places of entertainment in general. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and subsequent legislation also declared a strong legislative policy against discrimination in public schools and colleges which aided in desegregation. Title VI of the civil rights act prohibits discrimination in federally funded programs. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits employment discrimination where the employer is engaged in interstate commerce. Congress has passed numerous other laws dealing with employment discrimination.
Can be found here. From Cornell Law School.
Again, what we have here is a case where you, Omega, and your Philosophy of One
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
~ Hamlet, Act I. Scene V.
Read -> Research -> Discover -> Analyze -> Understand.
[ October 15, 2001: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
Don't you need a permit to burn something or sell products, etc?
Ya I know, it's a pain, but it is somewhat of an accepted reality.......
This anti-discrimination law impairs my right to do with my property what I please. It thereby takes control of that property away from me to a degree. Control IS ownership, regardless of what any papers might say.
1) It is not a law. The HRC does not enforce decisions on you. What it does is find out if you deliberately participated in an act of discrimination against the complainant. If it does, then it moves into legal proceedings like a lawsuit in which the HRC represents the complainant. Sometimes, the complainant can choose to go on its own, but that means they have to forget the HRC report.
2) Even with a Conservative or Libertarian government, you have to fill out permits for many things. So even in that instance, you don't have control, you're basically jumping the hoops of whatever government agency they direct you through. It's a pain, but it's reality.
You mean steal? No. They buy it at full market value (or higher) and if they don't, large stinks occur. It's relatively rare that anyone doesn't agree to sell for the price they're offered. One example, though, is that some idiot three blocks down from me was offered probably twice what his house was worth for his land, so they could build a library there. He didn't sell, God only knows why. So they built the thing three blocks further away, in a flood plain. But they didn't steal his house, by any means.
1) No stealing here. But whenever Government tries to buy their land to use in whatever project they want, words always scream "expropriation". Usually is because of some stubborn mule who is offered as much as 5 times the amount of his property but STILL won't move. I bet this happens down in the states as well. After all, this IS North America.
2) Some moron was offered 4 times the price of his house so construction can begin on a large clinic. He refused so many times that the architectural drawings were revised to accomodate the house. NOW he's trying to sell it for 4 times the amount but........
Me: However, if you are providing a service, you are obligated to serve all citizens of society.
Omega: No, because it's your labor, and your property.
I'll take that partially back as many people who experience such discrimination don't report it to the HRC. And besides, as I said earlier, the HRC is not the law, nor is it an enforcement agency, it acts on behalf of the complainant to see if discrimination has occurred, etc. etc.
Before you go on, only 5% of cases submitted to the HRC actually go through this process.
The Consitution doesn't guarentee that I have a right to put my feet on my desk. I have my feet on my desk at this very moment, and I doubt anyone will argue that I do not have that right. Look at the ninth ammentment some time.
Your mom will scream at you for poor etiquette. Any Constitutional Challenges there?
Look, Jay, you can call up all the eronius court ruling and laws all you want, and it won't change anything
1) It's spelled Erroneous.
2) I can just imagine you as a judge. Are you saying that the courts are always wrong and your definition of law is always correct?
Historically, the loose interpretations of Marshall in McCulloch v. Maryland allowed for a different approach to the 10th Amendment. Since it doesn't say any powers not EXPRESSLY (man I wish I knew how to use italics) delegated to the Federal government is reserved to the states. This interpration reached its most radical form in 1937 in Carter v. Carter Coal Company in which the Supreme Court announced that the 10th Amendment was but a "truism". In other words, the 10th amendment states a rather obvious fact and has no real political power. Recently the 10th Amendment has regained some of its power, particularly under Nixon and Reagan, but it still isn't read as strictly as the pre-1930s. So I guess my question is, just how strictly DO You read the Constitution and the 10th Amendment?
And if I've completely misunderstood your positions, then I apologize, for I am quite tired right now.
For italics, use two of the "<" and ">" with an "i" between them at the beginning of the word, then two more with an "/i" when you don't want any more italics. Or, click on "What Is UBB Code" under "Instant UBB Code" ...
quote:
Originally posted by Malnurtured Snay:
Vancouver,For italics, use two of the "<" and ">" with an "i" between them at the beginning of the word, then two more with an "/i" when you don't want any more italics. Or, click on "What Is UBB Code" under "Instant UBB Code" ...
Hmm.. like this ??
Oh sweet, thanks man.
Hmm. vancouver eh? i like that, maybe i'll change my name to it. I'm getting sick of this USS vanguard crap anyways. maybe it wouldn't seem as dweeby if some of the others kept the old uss names. ah well, i digress. thanks, snay, for the info.
[ October 15, 2001: Message edited by: USS Vanguard ]
The military's existence? Certainly I dispute it. Certain ACTIONS by the military can be a symptom of authoritarian thinking.
If you want to refer to the idea of the HRC as a symptom of authoritarian thinking, fine. I will push to you the idea that the military is also a symptom of authoritarian thinking, and is more likely to be as such than the HRC which, compared to the military, has very little power.
You don't seem to grasp the concept of a symptom. It means that it's an indicator that authoritarian thinking exists in the government. It doesn't need to have any power in and of itself. The more important symptom is the fact that the courts can actually punish someone for exercizing their innate rights to their property.
Okay, so you're protecting a populated area, but the killing of innocent people by the military is itself pretty damn authoritarian if you ask me
So you're suggesting that the government SHOULDN'T have the power to kill innocent civilians if it's the only way to prevent more innocent civilians from dying? That's just basic law enforcement logic: in a no-win scenario, you save the most lives possible. Thus the government itself already has the authority to do things like that. It's just that the military is the only entity equipped to handle such a situation.
Amendments to the Constitution place restrictions on discrimination based on public accommodation even for private people.
You want to give me a quote on that ammendment?
It has said, however, that in certain cases of public accommodation, that you can not.
Well, then the court is wrong. Can you not grasp that concept?
Don't you need a permit to burn something or sell products, etc?
In my fireplace? On eBay? Heck, no.
The HRC does not enforce decisions on you.
What the HRC does doesn't matter. The courts have the power to interfere with your right to do with what you please with your property, no?
Even with a Conservative or Libertarian government, you have to fill out permits for many things.
Mainly when you're dealing with things that affect other people, ie dumping chemicals in a river. Federal and state governments can't determine what I do with my property that doesn't affect others. Localities may be something else entirely, because they're not restricted by most parts of the federal Constitution, but that's a different topic.
You often claim the 10th to support your anti-federalist views. The 10th Amendment, as I'm sure we're all aware, says that any powers not delegated to the Federal Government are reserved to the states. The Elastic Clause however says that the government has the power to pass any laws necessary and proper for it to carry out its powers.
The Elastic Clause allows the government to pass laws necessary to carry out its existing enumerated duties and powers, not to create entirely new powers. There is no conflict.
So I guess my question is, just how strictly DO You read the Constitution and the 10th Amendment?
I read it exactly as it says: if the Constitution doesn't say the government can do it, the government can't do it. There's not much there to interpret.
Anyway, the Court has affirmed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 several times since it became law.
I'm sorry you can't accept that. I'm sorry that does not fit into your Philosophy Of One...your philosophy of It's True Because I Want It To Be True.
quote:
Originally posted by Omega:You often claim the 10th to support your anti-federalist views. The 10th Amendment, as I'm sure we're all aware, says that any powers not delegated to the Federal Government are reserved to the states. The Elastic Clause however says that the government has the power to pass any laws necessary and proper for it to carry out its powers.
The Elastic Clause allows the government to pass laws necessary to carry out its existing enumerated duties and powers, not to create entirely new powers. There is no conflict.
But there often is, the most famous being in McCulloch v Maryland. The problem is that who decides what is necessary and proper, Congress, the people, the states? More often than not, the answer isn't so clear.
quote:
Originally posted by Omega:
So I guess my question is, just how strictly DO You read the Constitution and the 10th Amendment?I read it exactly as it says: if the Constitution doesn't say the government can do it, the government can't do it. There's not much there to interpret.
Wow, if it was as easy as that, why do we even HAVE a judicial branch? No offense, but there's a whole shite load of stuff to interpret. We as a people have been doing it since the constitution was drafted. For example, how do we interpret something like the Necessary and Proper Clause. Who says what is necessary and proper? Or how about the 1st Amendment, there are a bunch of different interpretations out there? Or what about the taxing and spending power of Congress?It says it must be for the general welfare. How do you interpret that? Is general welfare directly helping the people as a whole? What if it only helps the unemployed which in turn helps the economy? Sometimes I wish we could simply read the Constitution and find what's right, but unfortunately, like everything else, it's much more complicated.
[ October 15, 2001: Message edited by: USS Vanguard ]
[ October 15, 2001: Message edited by: USS Vanguard ]
Bah to you all...
Me: Say that to the middle-class black people turned away from renting a condo only because they are black. Oh, their rights were never violated.... right?
Omega: Right.
Me: Please explain.
So you're suggesting that the government SHOULDN'T have the power to kill innocent civilians if it's the only way to prevent more innocent civilians from dying?
Later down my post, I identified an instance in which no danger to populated areas was not possible. And if the military shoots down the jet, that resembles an authoritarian action.
And I believe that the power to shoot down a civilian jet lies with the Military, and not the President.
Some things I'd like to note: You say Civilian Authority is paramount. That applies to all governmental institutions, AND the HRC. The HRC is comprised of a bunch of civilians appointed by a Lieutenant-Governor (some strange position I really can't define). Authoritarianism dissappears if Civilian Authority dissappears. Even in an Authoritarian government, something like the HRC would not be in existance. There was none during the reigns of Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Pinochet (NOT a liberal, but a conservative Authoritarian BTW), Milosevic, etc.
Well, then the court is wrong. Can you not grasp that concept?
Omega, you act as if you are above the law.
So Only the constitution is the law, and nothing else matters, right?
Don't you need a permit to burn something or sell products, etc?
In my fireplace? On eBay? Heck, no.
You need to have a permit to burn trees in your yard. After all, like you said, provided that it doesn't affect anyone else down the road (and a fire could grow into a bigger one if conditions are ripe for it). You also need a permit to make an addition to your house as you need to secure the necessary water and electrical connections for this addition (unless you're building a shed-like thingy).
Of course, there are plenty of mundane permits, but I won't get into that.
What the HRC does doesn't matter. The courts have the power to interfere with your right to do with what you please with your property, no?
The courts only mediate what they see as a lawsuit from a plaintiff to a defendant. The HRC is only involved if it is retained as legal counsel. If you have a problem, take it out with the plaintiff, not the courts, or the HRC. Of course, this does not include stuffing him into a trunk of a car and driving it into the ocean.
quote:
And I believe that the power to shoot down a civilian jet lies with the Military, and not the President.
Words "Commander in Chief" ring a bell? The President is always the highest-ranking person in the military. That's why the Joint Chiefs report to him, and why you'd need his authority to launch a nuclear strike. And shooting down a civilian airliner is such a drastic action for the military to take, you'd better believe they'd do it on his authority.
quote:
Lieutenant-Governor (some strange position I really can't define).
Essentialy the same relationship to Governor as Vice-President is to President.
quote:
You need to have a permit to burn trees in your yard. After all, like you said, provided that it doesn't affect anyone else down the road (and a fire could grow into a bigger one if conditions are ripe for it). You also need a permit to make an addition to your house as you need to secure the necessary water and electrical connections for this addition (unless you're building a shed-like thingy).
I don't need a permit to burn weeds and such, or garbage, or anything else that's far more likely to burn than trees. You must live in an especially restrictive place.
On the other hand, I have a tiny creek on my property, and I've been warned that if I were to build a small dam / create a small pool for crayfish to live in, the EPA would get me, even though the area affected would total maybe three square yards. STUPID. It's MY three square yards, and without me, NOTHING would be living there. I'm BUILDING a habitat, not destroying one!
Then there was the guy who was fined because the BEAVERS built a dam on his stream. STUPID.
quote:
Of course, there are plenty of mundane permits, but I won't get into that.
Good idea.. then we could get into all the stupid ramifications of enforcing said mundane permits.
quote:
The courts only mediate what they see as a lawsuit from a plaintiff to a defendant.
the HRC and similar things create the ability for there to be plaintiffs, legitimate and otherwise (more otherwise, from what I've experienced).
Hence, multizilliondollar lawsuits, hence increased costs, hence increased prices, cut staff, and cut budgets, hence a DECREASE rather than an increase in access and services.
Just like insurance fraud.
quote:
Originally posted by First of Two:
Essentialy the same relationship to Governor as Vice-President is to President.
Hmm.. I think I once heard that the Lt. Governor has a lot of power within the state government, unlike the Vice-President which deosn't have much of anything. I'm not sure, can someone check up on this?
[ October 16, 2001: Message edited by: USS Vanguard ]
[ October 16, 2001: Message edited by: USS Vanguard ]
quote:
Then there was the guy who was fined because the BEAVERS built a dam on his stream. STUPID.
I would actually like to clarify this point. First of all, it was the State of Michigan Department of Environmental Quality that was a party to this incident, not the federal Environmental Protection Agency. Second, this matter arose because the beaver dams were causing flooding on a neighbor's property. The neighbor found these dams were the problem and complained to the DEQ. The whole story is at Snopes.
quote:
Essentialy the same relationship to Governor as Vice-President is to President.
In the state of Texas, at least, the lieutenant governor position has a broaden range of power than the governor. He or she is often in charge of setting the legislative agendas, among other things.
1) From what I've been told, the power to shoot down a civilian jet lies within the military. I know what Commander-in-Chief means. I know that only the President can authorize the use of nukes, but I was surprised when people were saying that the authority to shoot down planes was with the highest ranking General, and NOT the President. Remind me to glue my eyes to more CNN.
2) Lieutenant-Governor in our province doesn't have anything to do with vice-Governor or anything like that. First of all, he/she is appointed by the province with the royal assent of the Queen. Secondly, he/she is not a lawmaker, but appoints people to civilian commissions similar to the HRC.
3) I don't need a permit to burn weeds and such, or garbage, or anything else that's far more likely to burn than trees. You must live in an especially restrictive place. Allow me to clarify: if you wish to burn an area larger than one half acre (I think), you need a permit. You DON'T need a permit to burn weeds, wood chips, or anything else. And Certainly, the government won't stop you from creating a pool for your Crayfish. As for a dam, well, I think it depends on the size.
4) Hence, multizilliondollar lawsuits, hence increased costs, hence increased prices, cut staff, and cut budgets, hence a DECREASE rather than an increase in access and services. If you want to use the HRC as a vehicle to sue, then the maximum amount of damages that you can claim is around $10,000 (not including legal fees), maybe even less. And if you want a multizilliondollar lawsuit, then you can do so, WITHOUT the HRC, and their reports stating of whatever discrimination has taken place. In other words, you go from scratch. The HRC was meant as a vehicle to address complaints, and NOT as a vehicle to abuse the court system. I've seen files on this. I've worked there. I know what it's like.
EDIT: forgot to add a bit regarding legal fees.
[ October 16, 2001: Message edited by: Tahna Los ]
1) The aircraft in question, after the 11th were civilian aircraft.
2) The president sets military policy. As such, he helps the military set the rules of engagement and an aircraft carrier off of Iraq has different rules than the Air National Guard out of Cleveland Ohio.
3) If Fo2 wasn't such a schmoe, he might have explained it in that manner.
I swear, that's what I heard.