AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@wandeljw,

wandeljw wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Dr. Williams as you posted is a professor of Economics at George Mason University--I believe he was department head for awhile. He writes a widely published syndicated column, has been featured in numerous scholarly journals, and has written a number of books. He has been called as an expert witness before Congress a number of times, is often a guest on various television shows, both conservative and liberal, and substitutes now and then as a radio talk show host. He is quite a philanthropist and serves on a number of charitable boards as well as conservative/libertarian think tanks. He is staunchly libertarian.

Why do you ask?

Does Professor Williams have any expertise in American law? I wonder if Scalia, Thomas, or Roberts would agree with Williams that the role of a supreme court justice is merely to be a "referee."

In addition to a PhD in economics, Dr. Williams also holds a Doctor of Laws which suggests he is far better versed in the law, including Constitutional law, than the average bear. I think Scalia, Thomas, and Roberts have in effect agreed with him re the Court being a referee in the context in which Williams used that.

You mentioned that is 'depressing to hear'. Why? Why would you want a Court that assumed powers of our elected representatives? Can you not see how that would be a horrendous dangers to all of our freedoms?

1 Reply

Scalia and Thomas are more than happy to "legislate from the bench." Conservatives have whine for decades about judicial activism, but change their tune pretty damned quickly when the judicial activist is "writing law" with which they agree.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I find it to be ironic that people who conditionally support murder and torture, who defend abuses and lawbreaking, accuse someone else of lacking a soul.

Cycloptichorn

Whats ironic is its okay with you if helpless innocent babies die, or even innocent people to die, but not okay to defend ourselves against murderers and terrorists. What you have is a very very twisted view of life. I want no part of it.

And if you don't believe in God, thats also a belief in a soul, cyclops. You apparently have none, according to your own belief system. You are no better than a rat, or a worm, or a parasite, I guess, in your view.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I find it to be ironic that people who conditionally support murder and torture, who defend abuses and lawbreaking, accuse someone else of lacking a soul.

Cycloptichorn

Whats ironic is its okay with you if helpless innocent babies die, or even innocent people to die

Woah right there, chief. Who told you it was okay with me if innocent people died?

Quote:

but not okay to defend ourselves against murderers and terrorists. What you have is a very very twisted view of life. I want no part of it.

By 'defending' you mean torture. Why don't you just come out and say it?

Quote:

And if you don't believe in God, thats also a belief in a soul, cyclops.

No, it isn't the same thing. How can you say such idiocy? Many buddhists believe in the soul but believe in no supreme deity.

Quote:

You apparently have none, according to your own belief system. You are no better than a rat, or a worm, or a parasite, I guess, in your view.

Do I have intrinsic worth, just because I am a human, which places me above other creatures, according to some mystical design, of which the only evidence existing is some story written in a book, thousands of years ago? No, I do not. And neither do you.

But I can perfectly well understand why you and others like you need to believe that you are better; it fills the hole in your life that you wouldn't know how to fill otherwise.

I have found ways to fill that hole that don't rely on religious mumbo-jumbo or superstitious clap-trap. And yes, I believe this is a superior system to yours.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

So what is the purpose of the Court? Is SCOTUS your god? Infallible? Inerrant? Does it have authority to decide all matters and override whatever Congress or the President or the people decide? Can the Court make whatever law it deems appropriate? If so, how are we not a totalitarian state in effect if not in name?

Has the high Court ruled on when a fetus is viable? Or has it simply established a guideline for how abortion can be judged legal or illegal? The lower courts have long since abandoned Roe v Wade anyway and the pro-abortionists demand that abortion on demand be legal at any stage of pregnancy and any baby that survives the abortion can be killed or forced to die. I suppose those who don't believe in sanctity of life woud not have any problem with that, however.

Who among you has the ability to determine the exact second when a baby is viable in the womb? As others have mentioned, an infant cannot survive outside the womb without a lot of help from more mature humans. So 'viablity' defined as ability to live on your own would presume years older than a newborn infant. For me, viability is the point at which the developing baby has potential to become a living, breathing viable person. Should SCOTUS have the power to tell me that my definition is invalid?

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

Should SCOTUS have the power to tell me that my definition is invalid?

Only from a legal standpoint. You are perfectly free to believe whatever you like, of course.

Please recall that the SC is not trying to tell you what to believe, but instead limiting the scope of your beliefs over the lives of others. And that is exactly the purpose of the SC; to weigh conflicting principles and come up with a balanced solution.

Quote:

Can the Court make whatever law it deems appropriate? If so, how are we not a totalitarian state in effect if not in name?

Um, the legislative branch can write new laws invalidating the court decisions, or they can change the Constitution to block the laws, or they can impeach members of the SC.

It's called separation of powers Fox, you ought to look it up before getting all breathless on us!

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I find it to be ironic that people who conditionally support murder and torture, who defend abuses and lawbreaking, accuse someone else of lacking a soul.

Cycloptichorn

Whats ironic is its okay with you if helpless innocent babies die, or even innocent people to die

Woah right there, chief. Who told you it was okay with me if innocent people died?

Whoa yourself. Thats what your policies indicate. And thats what Obama's policies indicate. Partial Birth abortion one huge example. Face it and take responsibility for a change, for your own political positions.

Quote:

Quote:
but not okay to defend ourselves against murderers and terrorists. What you have is a very very twisted view of life. I want no part of it.

By 'defending' you mean torture. Why don't you just come out and say it?

Torture as defined by who? I think a partial birth abortion is much more tortuous, much more lasting, than giving the impression to some of the most cruel and most heartless individuals known to mankind that they might drown for a few seconds, in the interest of gaining imformation to save innocent lives. Look chief, I am not excited about enhanced interrogation methods, but your own party, your own politicians said this was appropriate, until the political winds blew a different direction and they decided to stab Bush in the back. Pathetic bunch of people.

Quote:

Quote:
And if you don't believe in God, thats also a belief in a soul, cyclops.

No, it isn't the same thing. How can you say such idiocy? Many buddhists believe in the soul but believe in no supreme deity.

Talk about convoluted reasoning, if there is no God, who created the soul, cyclops, face it, you have no leg to stand on.

Quote:

Quote:
You apparently have none, according to your own belief system. You are no better than a rat, or a worm, or a parasite, I guess, in your view.

Do I have intrinsic worth, just because I am a human, which places me above other creatures, according to some mystical design, of which the only evidence existing is some story written in a book, thousands of years ago? No, I do not. And neither do you.

The truth of your pathetic mindset comes forth. When I kill a worm in my garden, I might as well shoot you, in your judgement, I am just as bad. No wonder you are an environmentalist. If you are so convinced the environment is so bad, you could solve the problem by simply killing off a few billion people, right, cyclops, after all, no worse than killing an over-population of mosquitos.
You people are pathetic.

Quote:

But I can perfectly well understand why you and others like you need to believe that you are better; it fills the hole in your life that you wouldn't know how to fill otherwise.

I have found ways to fill that hole that don't rely on religious mumbo-jumbo or superstitious clap-trap. And yes, I believe this is a superior system to yours.

Cycloptichorn

Yes, I do feel like I am better in the eyes of the creator than a worm, or a rat, or a parasite. If you don't, I feel sorry for you.

Finally, we get to the heart of the liberal mindset, the belief. If this isn't mind numbing, scary, or disheartening, I don't know what is.

1 Reply

Just to make sure this is on record, cyclops has stated he is no better than any living creature, which includes rats, worms, parasites, whatever. Take notice people, he also feels that way about every one of the rest of us.

I never would have believed it if I haven't read what he wrote.

0 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

When I kill a worm in my garden, I might as well shoot you, in your judgement, I am just as bad.

Yaknow what Okie? Sometimes, you can be a real ******* idiot.

How you can manage to improperly interpret every single sentence I write is beyond me. You make illogical jumps and erroneous claims, based on your belief system, not mine, and then attribute them to me. Quit putting words in my mouth and acting as if I had said them, when I have not.

Quote:

Whoa yourself. Thats what your policies indicate.

Non-viable fetuses aren't people. So no, my policies don't indicate that.

Quote:

Torture as defined by who? I think a partial birth abortion is much more tortuous, much more lasting, than giving the impression to some of the most cruel and most heartless individuals known to mankind that they might drown for a few seconds, in the interest of gaining imformation to save innocent lives

You have some mystical power, to determine that people are 'the most cruel and heartless?' Who gave you that ******* right, Okie? And by extension, the right to torture folks?

I don't believe you when you say you aren't excited about torture. I think you applaud it.

Quote:

Talk about convoluted reasoning, if there is no God, who created the soul, cyclops, face it, you have no leg to stand on.

Ridiculous and illogical. Are you positing that a Soul could only have come from some supreme deity? This is hardly an established fact and huge swathes of humans would vehemently disagree with you, and their religion is a hell of a lot older than yours.

Quote:

Yes, I do feel like I am better in the eyes of the creator than a worm, or a rat, or a parasite. If you don't, I feel sorry for you.

As I do not believe in a 'creator,' the answer is no, I don't believe I am intrinsically 'better' than those animals.

But don't feel sorry for me. I'm happier, younger, likely richer, better looking, and more intelligent than you. I have a long and full life in front of me to look forward to, and I don't have to rely on the pillars of hate, keeping others down, and mystical idiocy in order to make sense of that life, in the fashion that you do, Okie.

You really seem to be extremely unhappy these days; I'm going to re-offer the same advice I gave a few days ago: chill out.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

But don't feel sorry for me. I'm happier, younger, likely richer, better looking, and more intelligent than you
Cycloptichorn

And since cyclops thinks he is no better than a worm or a parasite, other political opponents take notice, you can guess what cyclops thinks of you too.

Finally, we can all now know what cyclops really thinks.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

But if the Court can make whatever laws it wishes or interpret however it wishes, what is to keep the Court from interpreting the law to in effect make itself unimpeachable?

Separation of powers was intended to 1) Ensure that laws would be made by consent of the people through representatives that they elect to do that within limitations established by the Constitution; 2) Ensure that administration would not be done via committee (Congress) but through a President with authority to do that, and 3) checks and balances via the Court to prevent either Congress or the President from taking away unalienable rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

When Congress makes law that was intended to be the prerogative of the various states, and when the Court presumes to make law rather than Congress making law, this process is corrupted and the principles are violated.

2 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
But don't feel sorry for me. I'm happier, younger, likely richer, better looking, and more intelligent than you
Cycloptichorn

And since cyclops thinks he is no better than a worm or a parasite, other political opponents take notice, you can guess what cyclops thinks of you too.

Finally, we can all now know what cyclops really thinks.

I've never made any secret of my beliefs, Okie.

You seem really caught up on the fact that I don't place human life on some intrinsic pedestal above all other things in the universe. Why is this so troubling to you? If you took the time to explain, instead of casting aspersions and making stupid comments, perhaps we could move forward with an actual discussion of the matter and how it pertains to political philosophy.

I can tell you this: there are reasons to do and believe things other than religious ones. Better reasons, with a much more complete underlying logical structure.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre, I apologize for intruding upon this thread with the exchange with cyclops, but you know what, I found out some interesting things, I think I actually got to the bottom of why cyclops and probably other liberals look at the world the way they do. This answers alot of questions, or at least confirms suspicions.

Carry on.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

So concocting a new rule out of the constitution, the "right to privacy," that sounds like not applying a rule but instead making up a new one. Kind of like the umpire saying - uh, you can't tag a runner on his stomach or some such thing, something totally made up that isn't in the rule book.

There's statutory law, and then there's common law. Legislatures makes the former, judges make the latter. The same is true in baseball. The rulebook constitutes the game's statutory law, but certain "rules" exist that have been made by umpires over the years and are now pretty much the game's common law. For instance, the "phantom tag" when a second baseman or shortstop drags his foot somewhere in the vicinity of second base at the front end of a double play. Under the statutes/rulebook, the runner should be safe, but because the fielder would be risking serious injury by actually stepping on the bag, umpires give him a certain amount of leeway. Likewise, umpires allow the catcher to block home plate even though the rulebook says that he should be called for obstruction. It's a balancing between the letter and spirit of the laws which creates a new rule to fill an area where the statutes are not helpful.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

But if the Court can make whatever laws it wishes or interpret however it wishes, what is to keep the Court from interpreting the law to in effect make itself unimpeachable?

The American people. Same as we keep other branches of government from doing the same thing. Also, the Leg. branch could re-write those laws or impeach the court.

Really, this is a little ridiculous.

Quote:

Separation of powers was intended to 1) Ensure that laws would be made by consent of the people through representatives that they elect to do that within limitations established by the Constitution; 2) Ensure that administration would not be done via committee (Congress) but through a President with authority to do that, and 3) checks and balances via the Court to prevent either Congress or the President from taking away unalienable rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

Oh, were you at the meeting where they discussed this? I'm not sure I agree with your concrete explanation of the intention of separation of powers.

Quote:

When Congress makes law that was intended to be the prerogative of the various states, and when the Court presumes to make law rather than Congress making law, this process is corrupted and the principles are violated.

Sometimes, interpreting a law and making decisions based upon interpretation of law conflicts with the way Congress decided to write the law. The court has the power to make this determination and enforce it; but Congress can always go back and re-write the law or the Constitution if they feel necessary. There is no corruption involved at all.

You've taken what is essentially a political attack that Republicans use in order to try and keep as few liberals on the court as possible, and are now trying to find some sort of underlying logic for your belief. I applaud that; but your insistence on ultimate purity does not match the actual way the courts and our governmental system works here in the real world.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I've never made any secret of my beliefs, Okie.

You seem really caught up on the fact that I don't place human life on some intrinsic pedestal above all other things in the universe. Why is this so troubling to you?
Cycloptichorn

Okay I will make one more comment. The answer, why is it so troubling, because it goes to the heart of what it means to be a decent person, to have the right philosophy of life, to be an American, to believe in the constitution, all kinds of things. It all starts here. If you have that wrong, your whole belief system and life will be screwed up.

And I believe most conservatives have the most basic belief system of their life pretty well figured out, and it is totally different than what you have stated, we believe in the sanctity of life, and we believe in some pretty basic things given us by God, as a result of that, such as basic rights, freedoms, and responsibilities that come with it. It doesn's start with government, it starts with a God, and that is what our entire American way of life is based upon, the Declaration of Independence is based upon. If you don't believe that way, then I can see why you don't really love this country or care about preserving it.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

ican711nm wrote:

What do you think are the differences in the consequences of assuming the sanctity of life is a moral imperative versus assuming it is a defensive tool created by the minds of men?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I think the most important consequence is an opening of one's eyes to the true nature of the universe, and the dropping of a lot of self-important bullshit that only serves to hold our species back from further development.

Cycloptichorn, please provide a few examples of what you think is "the true nature of the universe" and the "self-important bullshit that only serves to hold our species back from further development"?

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I've never made any secret of my beliefs, Okie.

You seem really caught up on the fact that I don't place human life on some intrinsic pedestal above all other things in the universe. Why is this so troubling to you?
Cycloptichorn

Okay I will make one more comment. The answer, why is it so troubling, because it goes to the heart of what it means to be a decent person, to have the right philosophy of life, to be an American, to believe in the constitution, all kinds of things. It all starts here. If you have that wrong, your whole belief system and life will be screwed up.

Why? This assertion tells me nothing at all.

Quote:

And I believe conservatives have the most basic belief system of their life pretty well figured out, and it is totally different than what you have stated, we believe in the sanctity of life, and we believe in some pretty basic things given us by God

That is to say, you believe that stories written in a several-thousand year old book, are a better explanation for the world around you than logical examination of said world. I can't agree that this is true.

Quote:

, as a result of that, such as basic rights, freedoms, and responsibilities that come with it. It doesn's start with government, it starts with a God, and that is what our entire American way of life is based upon

WRONG in the extreme. The entire American way of life is based on equality, justice, and freedom, not the existence of a supreme being. You don't know much about American history, do you?

Quote:

the Declaration of Independence is based upon. If you don't believe that way, then I can see why you don't really love this country or care about preserving it.

You are basically latching on to comments I've made in order to imply that I am a bad person, who doesn't love his country and who would as soon kill someone else as he would a bug. None of this follows logically at all - there is literally no logic in what you are writing at all. It is entirely empty assertion on your part, and what more, insulting assertion.

I rest comfortably, however, in the fact that you are an old man who likely lacks the suppleness of mind to consider differing points of view as equal to your own; and also in the fact that the younger generations, if polling is to be believed at all, tend to agree with me far more than they do you. Religious worship, inequality, tolerance for hate, bigotry, and fear of science - all seem to be on the decline. And good riddance to them!

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Scalia and Thomas are more than happy to "legislate from the bench." Conservatives have whine for decades about judicial activism, but change their tune pretty damned quickly when the judicial activist is "writing law" with which they agree.

Please provide a few examples to show that "Scalia and Thomas are more than happy to 'legislate from the bench'."

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

ican711nm wrote:
What do you think are the differences in the consequences of assuming the sanctity of life is a moral imperative versus assuming it is a defensive tool created by the minds of men?

Cycloptichorn wrote:
I think the most important consequence is an opening of one's eyes to the true nature of the universe, and the dropping of a lot of self-important bullshit that only serves to hold our species back from further development.

Cycloptichorn, please provide a few examples of what you think is "the true nature of the universe" and the "self-important bullshit that only serves to hold our species back from further development"?

Okie, pay attention. I have no doubt that Ican disagrees with me, yet instead of putting words in my mouth, he is asking questions. You should learn from him (something I thought I would never say).

The true nature of the universe: the Universe is an infinitely large place with a diversity of existence that cannot be measured. Human beings are an infinitely small portion of overall existence. Any pretension that we have, that humans are special, unique, or superior in any intrinsic or sacred way, to other forms of life, is a delusion brought about by one's limited perspective.

Further meditation and study of the nature of time, the universe, one's self, brings a detachment from the idea of self-importance and species aggrandizement. We ought to view our place in existence with humility and respect, instead of arrogance and bold claims of intrinsic worth.

The self-important bullshit that only serves to hold our species back from further development - reliance on inaccurate, unprovable, untestable, divisive and sometimes hateful religious teachings as a description of the way the world IS or SHOULD BE, instead of the pillars of logic, evidence, and science.

Let us take as an example, the Middle East. Much of our commonly used logic and mathematics stems from this region. Many wonderful inventions and art and music have stemmed from this region, in fact, it is considered by many to be the birthplace of modern civilization.

Can we not look at this region, and honestly state that an over-reliance on religion and religious superstition is not holding them back as a people? Not harming our entire world? The conflict there pretty much all stems from religious arguments. Many of their repressive social problems come from the same place. How would it not help, to have an enlightenment, a release from the strict bounds of slavish adherence to long-dead men's views of how things should be done?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know