AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@Yankee,

Yankee wrote:

Quote:
No, I'm quite sure you don't.

Umm.... I think I am more expert on my views and opinions than you.

He gave you a test to see if his theory is right. I suppose you could PROVE him wrong, instead of just saying he is.

Yankee wrote:

The beauty in the way the Constitution was written was that it provided for the natural change in "technology" as it may relate to the 2nd amendment. That is what Legislation is for, to fill gaps that the Constitution may fail to fill.

Certainly this isn't an academic argument. I'd love for you to find the word "technology" in the original constitution.

Legislation often fills gaps, but the purpose of the Judicial Branch is very specifically to interpret the law.

Certainly there are gaps in our laws. We aren't going to create legislation for all of them. No way. You'll never see, nor do I think you should, a law about what you can have written on a t-shirt you wear in public. No. Instead we address things in general terms such as granting a freedom of expression/protest/etc.

Think about laws involving speech. You can't yell fire in a theater. Is it because the word "fire" is illegal to say in a theater or is it because inciting panic in pubic places creates disorder and public safety? Can't say bomb either. Should we have a piece of legislation that outlines all the words that might cause panic? No.

Yankee wrote:

Without going point by point in your response, in my humble opinion, the Constitution provides the framework to provide rights and liberties to ALL.

In your own words: framework.

Framework is rarely considered a complete thing. What completes the rest of the picture? Super finite legislation? There would be a hell of a lot of it. In terms of government, that would make our government HUGE. Especially to enforce something like that. Hell, just to know it all.

Yankee wrote:

Our legislators are able to build off the foundation the Constitution creates without changing the fundamental rights and liberties provided.

Gun legislation is 1 example.

The defense of marriage act too. How is it by any stretch constitutional? You must honor marriages from other states in full faith and credit, but not if they are gay???

What talk of liberties now?

T
K
O

1 Reply

Well, equal rights for all classes of citizens . . . except for them gay homo dudes who want to marry each other . . . but otherwise, equal rights for all classes of citizens . . .

1 Reply

@parados,

I certainly argued ad hominem in no way. I provided my opinion that you didn't answer the question because you can't. I think if you could, you would have. You can prove me wrong simply by answering the question that you specifically said you would not answer.

I noted the issue you raised, but it did not address the question. The only revision I made was to provide a third option in answer to your complaint, which was valid, that the question was leading. The third option corrected that situation.

There is no suggestion that your beliefs aren't valid, sincere, or passionately held. The experiment was to determine whether you could articulate a clear and supportable rationale for your belief rather than divert to more contentious rhetoric.

So, if you should change your mind and decide to answer the question, here it is again:

Here is the question again:

Do you favor a Federal government that is small, efficient, and effective but restricted much more closely to its Constitutionally mandated authority/responsibility or do you favor the President's initiatives to greatly increase the size, scope, and involvement of the Federal government? (I would accept a third option that you favor neither, but would still like to know why.)

Please provide three (or more) historically supported reasons for your answer.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Do you like apples or fruit? Boats or canoes?

Your question is not a question at all. It applies bad logic and is based no a conclusion you want.

parados - Any answer you give that isn't the one she wants will be unacceptable.

What is the value of a small government other than Fox implying that it's the way to being officiant and effective?

I agree with Cyclo on redundancy over efficiency, although I see where one or the other might win out depending on what we are talking about. Perhaps more important is that they both have a place. Emphasis on BOTH. Government can take the chances on things that will reward no profit, and Fox doesn't get that.

I think the only thing that needs to be addressed is effectiveness. In that regard, one could answer how size, scope (somehow different than size?) and involvement (somehow different than size and scope?) make for an effective government.

Fox's question assumes that small means efficient, that effective means efficient, and that if you want effective government you must make it smaller.

T
K
O

2 Replies

@Diest TKO,

Fox's is a classic "have you stopped beating your wife" question. Anyone who attempts to answer it, agrees by inference with this proposition:

Quote:

Or do you agree with the President that the Federal government should be much bigger with more authority and much more involved in those things affecting the people?

. . . which is a direct quote from Fox's post.

The best way to answer her is to point out that she has provided no evidence the Mr. Obama considers a larger Federal government necessary, or that he considers that government needs to be "much more involved in those things affecting the people" (a clumsy and vague locution). This is typical of Fox, that she assumes things which she hasn't demonstrated, and then gets prissy and condemnatory with those who challenge the question rather than answering it.

The proper responses to the question of "have you stopped beating your wife?" are either "I have never beaten my wife" or "I'm not married."

The proper response to Fox's question would be "I have no reason to assume that Mr. Obama thinks that way."

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

Diest TKO wrote:

Do you like apples or fruit? Boats or canoes?

Your question is not a question at all. It applies bad logic and is based no a conclusion you want.

parados - Any answer you give that isn't the one she wants will be unacceptable.

What is the value of a small government other than Fox implying that it's the way to being officiant and effective?

I agree with Cyclo on redundancy over efficiency, although I see where one or the other might win out depending on what we are talking about. Perhaps more important is that they both have a place. Emphasis on BOTH. Government can take the chances on things that will reward no profit, and Fox doesn't get that.

I think the only thing that needs to be addressed is effectiveness. In that regard, one could answer how size, scope (somehow different than size?) and involvement (somehow different than size and scope?) make for an effective government.

Fox's question assumes that small means efficient, that effective means efficient, and that if you want effective government you must make it smaller.

T
K
O

I think this is the result from starting from an ideological point, and casting about to find evidence to support it, rather than building up from first principles.

I say this, b/c the truth is that different aspects of government need to be ALL the things that were listed, simultaneously... but you can't attack Democrats with such inclusive ideas, so they aren't popular amongst the base.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Diest TKO,

Quote:

The defense of marriage act too. How is it by any stretch constitutional? You must honor marriages from other states in full faith and credit, but not if they are gay???

What talk of liberties now?

Have you discussed this with your Representatives?

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Again, States Rights issue.

2 Replies

@joefromchicago,

I do not see a thoughtful response anywhere in your post.

Are you always this vague and arrogant?

2 Replies

@Yankee,

Yankee wrote:

I do not see a thoughtful response anywhere in your post.

Are you always this vague and arrogant?

Actually, he is neither; though those who engage in poor argumentation often feel that way about their opponents, I have noticed.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Yankee,

Yankee wrote:

Quote:
The defense of marriage act too. How is it by any stretch constitutional? You must honor marriages from other states in full faith and credit, but not if they are gay???

What talk of liberties now?

Have you discussed this with your Representatives?

Actually, yes. In more recent history, I met Brian Moran on his campaign for VA governor. He lost the primary, but he's still on the state congress. He's even my district's rep. Back, when I lived in MO, I used to write letters to the Carnahans about the subject when no states had gay marriage.

I'm not sure what your point is, or how it addresses my question to you. I asked you something, and you replied with a question. I'm perfectly fine answering the question, but you could return the favor and answer mine (that I notably asked first).

What of liberties and equality in the USA when homosexuals can't serve openly in military, can't marry, and in some states there are no protections to prevent being fired solely due to your sexual preference?

T
K
O

0 Replies

@Yankee,

Yankee wrote:

I do not see a thoughtful response anywhere in your post.

Well, I was working with some pretty weak material.

Yankee wrote:

Are you always this vague and arrogant?

No, I'm usually much less vague.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Do you always respond for Joefromchicago?

1 Reply

@Yankee,

This does not constitute a valid answer to having pointed out that those who call for equal treatment for a "classes" of citizens cannot therefore in good conscience support a ban on homosexual marriages. To do so is to erect a set of unequal rights. Quoting the tenth amendment is a non sequitur to this issue.

1 Reply

@Yankee,

Yankee wrote:

Do you always respond for Joefromchicago?

No, he doesn't.

1 Reply

@Yankee,

Yankee wrote:

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Again, States Rights issue.

Yeah, but you see, for a state to be a state it has to be a republic. Things like the equal protection clause make things like marriage (gay or straight) a issue that is covered.

What about full faith and credit? You get married in State A and move with your wife to State B, should the marriage be honored? You're saying this is a state's right issue, but you are ignoring the federal issues that it raises.

A marriage in Iowa is exactly as a marriage in Wyoming. Saying that gays that get married in Iowa won't have their marriage recognized in WY but a straight couple's will kind of fly in the face of your ideas regarding equality amongst classes.

T
K
O

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

Yankee wrote:

Do you always respond for Joefromchicago?

No, he doesn't.

Careful Joe. Foxfyre already thinks that Cyclo and I are the same person. Perhaps Cyclo is you too. We are legion and all that jazz.

lol.

T
K
O

1 Reply

I would like to state for the record that i am neither Diest TKO, nor H2Oman.

2 Replies

Setanta is an H2O MAN wanna-be Wink

This just in....

According to a Rasmussen poll, more voters now trust Republicans more than Democrats to handle the economy, by a margin of 45-39.
Scott Rasmussen notes that "this is the first time in over two years of polling that the GOP has held the advantage on this issue."

0 Replies

I would like to state for the record that i am neither Diest TKO, nor H2Oman.

1 Reply

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know