AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn,
Where in the Constitution is the President of the United States granted the power to do any of these things:

(a) Lawfully negate the contracts made by these corporations with their corporate bond holders to pay their full equity in those bonds, BEFORE distributing corporate assets to any other corporate persons including employees?

(b) Lawfully disallow any corporate receivers of federal loans to pay back those loans before the federal government permits them to?

(c) Lawfully close selected car dealerhips?

(d) Lawfully take property from those who lawfully earn it, and give it to those who do not lawfully earn it?

The Constitution does not address these issues, Ican. Surely you realize this.

Now, as for D), specifically, you ought to read up on the recent Kelo decision, as the SC has indeed decided that property can be taken from one and given to another if there is a pressing need to do so.

Additionally, it is poor form to answer a question with another question. You ought to be willing to answer my question before posing your own.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Thomas,

And that, of course, is exactly the point of asking a leading question, and then demanding a "simple" answer.

0 Replies

Yankee is preaching to the choir when he tells us that the Constitution secures liberty and equal protection of the law for ALL persons:

Yankee wrote:

While this Govt in the past has made, in my view, errors in the interpretation of the Constitution, if we read the Bill literally, there would be freedom of and liberty for ALL citizens. Justice must be BLIND and administered equally to ALL citizens.

There should not be certain "rules " for one "class" of citizens as opposed to another "class" of citizens.

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.

Yankee wrote:

The application of justice and the rule of law must be applied equally in every circumstance to all citizens.

Yankee's statements, set forth above, are consistent with the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment that applies to STATE action:

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.

In Loving v. Virginia, the United States Supreme Court applied both the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to strike down discriminatory State marriage laws.

Even though some people pretend to embrace the supreme law of the land as set forth in the Fourteenth Amendment, they inevitably display their hypocrisy and disappoint our expectations of a citizen.

Setanta and others have pointed out that the supreme law of the land is dishonored and violated when bigoted people attempt to carve out exceptions from the rule of law for classes of people whom they disfavor:

Setanta wrote:

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 . . .

In response to Setanta's observation that some people who beat the liberty and equal protection drums are often hypocrites, Yankee wrote the following:

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.

Responding to Setanta's observation of hypocrisy, Yankee clearly ignored the Fourteenth Amendment which prohibits the States from exercising any power to deprive or deny persons of equal protection of the laws. Contrary to Yankee's disingenuous reliance on the 10th Amendment to justify discriminatory marriage laws, states do not have the power to discriminate against gay people.

Yankee has proven that he does not actually mean what he says when he says "the application of justice and the rule of law must be applied equally in every circumstance to all citizens."

In practice, Yankee embraces discrimination under the guise of "states rights."

Yankee does not practice what he preaches.

Similarly, the failure to practice what one preaches is the over-shadowing theme of the conservative movement.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

I gave a response HERE....

http://able2know.org/topic/113196-535#post-3675001

I realize you don't like my response. I elaborated further here..

http://able2know.org/topic/113196-535#post-3675073

The interesting part of your claim that I didn't answer is that I gave an almost identical response to someone you thanked for answering you. These are from my 2 posts.

Quote:

The government should be efficient. However, in reality, there is no such thing as an efficient government.

Quote:

I favor a government that is withing its constitutionally mandated responsibility.

Quote:

Small and effective can be mutually exclusive.

Now, let's compare what I said to what you DID accept.

http://able2know.org/topic/113196-535#post-3675076

Quote:

I do not believe the purpose of government is Efficiency, and that shouldn't be a top goal of government.

Sounds a little familiar to me since I talked about efficiency.

Quote:

As for Constitutional authority, I believe government should be limited in that respect;

Sounds an awful lot like a government that is restricted to the constitution like I said earlier.

I would appreciate it Fox, if you could point out something substantial that Cyclo said that I didn't address. The problem Fox, is that you accused me of not doing it when you congratulated Cyclo for something very similar to what I had already said. The difference is I posted 3 historical uses of government that supported government working by not being small.

1 Reply

@parados,

The funny thing is, I gave what amounts to a substantial answer; but b/c it made too much sense, and didn't move the conversation forward in the way she suggested, it was not accepted.

Same with you. The problem is that you and I are coming into this conversation with a false conception of the point, at least from Fox's point of view. The goal isn't to have a discussion which actually examines these issues, or we wouldn't see such unwillingness to actually engage in said discussion; instead, the point is for us to answer in a format which is favorable to her argument, in her mind.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

My mistake, I thought Fox had accepted your answer but it seems she didn't.

Quote:

Thank you for the response but while you provided some reasonable points, you really didn't address or answer the question which doesn't lend itself to rewriting but is rather specific.

Yes.. she definately wants a yes/no answer to "Are you still beating your wife?".

Any other answer including rewriting the question even though she gave that option are not acceptable it seems.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

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.)

Let's make this very clear for you Fox.

I favor NEITHER because they are false choices. I favor neither because you have provided no support for either false choice you have presented.

I already listed what I do support. You didn't accept it as a choice however it seems even though you claimed I could present another option.

Now then, why don't you present your evidence to support either of your choices being factual and not a logical fallacy.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Setanta wrote:
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."

Beware of the Bill O'Reilly Rochade, however: "Those Libruls just can't answer a straight question 'yes' or 'no'"

I think Bill O'Reilly would so far say See? I told you so. To the first part of the question, the correct answer would be yes with three specific reasons why or no with three specific reasons why. I can almost guarantee you that most of those who identify themselves as 'conservative' or "MAC" or even Republican would be able to do that perhaps with some qualification, but without much if any equivocation.

The correct answer to the second part of the question would also be yes or no with three specific reasons why. And I didn't refer to what the President thinks. I referred to the President's initiatives, such as a 3.5 trillion dollar budget, take over of banks and auto manufacturing firms, dictating executive salaries, universal health care, plus several other 'new' initiatives all in the news just recently, to expand the size and scope of government. People either approve of that or they don't.

OR....it would have also been correct--actually most correct--to have picked one or the other and clarified the three reasons.

But if you favor neither smaller government as described nor larger government I did offer a third alternative of neither with an invitation to explain why.

Who has answered it in that way?

We got some typical liberal stuff about starving people and the interstate highway system, etc., but neither was put into any kind of context with the question. And there was not a single reference or even allusion to 'wife beating' in the context anywhere. Does 'red herring' come to mind?

The exercise was advertised up front as an experiment to illustrate my earlier comment that liberals may be just as smart and knowledgeable and intelligent as anybody else, but they frequently have a very difficult time articulating a clear and reasoned rationale for why they believe what they believe. Much more so, I think, than many conservatives do.

3 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

The exercise was advertised up front as an experiment to illustrate my earlier comment that liberals may be just as smart and knowledgeable and intelligent as anybody else, but they frequently have a very difficult time articulating a clear and reasoned rationale for why they believe what they believe. Much more so, I think, than many conservatives do.

I have to reveal a secret to you, Fox: we've been colluding by PM to conduct an experiment on you. See, the idea was to find out if you would be flexible enough to interpret answers which did not clearly follow your format, and move forward with the conversation even though the resident Liberals did not play your rhetorical game. The 'nay' votes seem to have won the day, and I feel foolish for casting the 'yes' vote.

On to the next experiment...

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxie wrote:

Quote:

I referred to the President's initiatives, such as a 3.5 trillion dollar budget, take over of banks and auto manufacturing firms, dictating executive salaries, universal health care, plus several other 'new' initiatives all in the news just recently, to expand the size and scope of government.

When did Obama take over the banks and auto manufacturing firms?

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Yeah well, I suppose it follows that when you have so many conversation here with yourself, that you would collude with yourself in IMs too. But you have so far been an excellent subject for my experiment and thank you for that.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Yeah well, I suppose it follows that when you have so many conversation here with yourself, that you would collude with yourself in IMs too. But you have so far been an excellent subject for my experiment and thank you for that.

Are you just completely unaware of detecting sarcasm, or what?

Jeez, your persecution complex runs deep, doesn't it.

Are you still promoting the theory that I have more than one A2K identity? If so, I will ask you once again if you are willing to bet on it. Because I sure am.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Sarcasm works two ways.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Sarcasm works two ways.

Hate to break it to ya, but - it doesn't appear to be, now that you mention it.

I will take your failure to respond to my challenge to indicate your unwillingness to put your money/honor where your mouth is.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

And you still feel like a victim? LOL

0 Replies

@parados,

Parados I was trying to keep this as civil as possible, but I should have added another preliminary opinion that not only will many liberals be unable to answer the question but they will instead either attack the question or the one asking it.

The question could as easily be phrased: Do you favor a big Federal government that addresses and involves itself in the basic needs and problems of the people or do you favor a Federal government that does not assume any role that can be left to the private sector? Or are you somewhere in between these two points? Please provide a clearly articulated rationale for your answer with three historically related examples for why you hold the opinion that you do.

You can't logically say in one breath that you refuse to answer the question because it is a bogus question and in another breath criticize me for not accepting your 'answers'.

You either want a bigger and larger government that is more and more involved in the everyday issues of the people or you don't. I think MACs don't have any problem with that kind of question. I wish somebody on the 'liberal' side would actually make a good argument for why a bigger and more involved government is a good thing if that is what they think.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Hey, Foxie, please answer the question: When did Obama take over the banks and auto manufacturing firms?

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

You either want a bigger and larger government that is more and more involved in the everyday issues of the people or you don't. I think MACs don't have any problem with that kind of question.

Yeah, MACs are easy to spot. They're the ones who drive on government-funded roads, send their kids to public schools, check out Ann Coulter books from public libraries and read them on public beaches, take federally tested pharmaceuticals and eat federally inspected food, take trips from government-funded airports to national parks, patriotically watch the government-sponsored Fourth of July fireworks displays, complain that the government doesn't interfere enough in the lives of women and gays, and dream of a retirement where they get Medicare and Social Security, all the while bitching about how large and intrusive the government has become.

2 Replies

@joefromchicago,

But the best one yet is those same MACs are dying to go to heaven to become true socialists.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

My responses are in blue.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The Constitution does not address these issues, Ican. Surely you realize this.

Surely you realize that when the Constitution does not address an issue by granting the federal government the power to deal with that issue, the federal government does not have the power to deal with that issue. Please review Amendment X.

Now, as for D), specifically, you ought to read up on the recent Kelo decision, as the SC has indeed decided that property can be taken from one and given to another if there is a pressing need to do so.

Surely you realize that the Supreme Court cannot lawfully amend the Constitution anymore than can the President or the Congress. The Supreme Court's Kelo decision is a clear violation of the Constitution in that the Supreme Court has not been granted the power by the Constitution to take private property for private use. Amendment V grants government the power to take private property only for public use with just compensation.

Additionally, it is poor form to answer a question with another question. You ought to be willing to answer my question before posing your own.

I did answer your question in strict accord with the Constitution's Amendment X. Surely you realize that if the federal government is not granted the power by the Constitution to do something, the federal government does not have that power and cannot lawfully exercise that power. So if you think the federal government has the power to do something, you are logically obligated to show where in the Constitution that power is granted to the federal government.

Because of Amendment X, one is not logically compelled to provide laws that prohibit powers, when the Constitution has not granted such powers to the federal government in the first place. Amendment X makes it clear that unless a power is granted by the Constitution to the federal government, the federal government does not have that power.

If you or Setanta or anyone else thinks the federal government ought to have a particular power that it does not currently lawfully possess, you must convince the federal government and/or the states to act in accord with Article V. The only lawful ways to change the Constitution are specified in Article V.

0 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know