Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
Dixie, we did have education in this country prior to the Carter Administration, just so you know...
Marital Counseling for Libertarians and Social Conservatives
- Thread starter Dixie - In Memoriam
- Start date
Not true. DOMA upended the status quo and in a way you claim to oppose. DOMA, for the first time, put restrictions on what marriages the federal government would recognize in order to discriminate against homosexuals. Prior to DOMA the federal government considered you married if a state considered you married.
Here is another of your lies. You claim to want to leave this to the states while fully supporting DOMA and even advocating an amendment.
So, the majority will is not a valid justification for state action in all cases? Why not? On what other principle does it depend?
This issue is about discrimination. Nothing in the 14th implies that equality before the law is only protected for race.
Fuck you. I understand, exactly, what the founders were about and where there principles lead. You have not shown the slightest clue about what justifies state action, which is made clear by your retarded arguments that gay marriage will lead to people marrying their mailboxes.
BTW, you evaded another question that shows how stupid your non sequitur slippery slope is. Laws prohibiting homosexual sex have been overturned while laws against sex with minors have grown more restrictive. Further, the principles overturning prohibitions on gay sex have not lead to overturning laws prohibiting bestiality and I have heard of no epidemic of people have sex with their mailboxes. Why is that?
You are an idiot. The government is representative of the people's will. They are one and the same. As Madison noted (and you show your ignorance of his point here) that power holds the threat of becoming oppressive when not checked by individual rights. If you support unlimited majority rule then you support big government.
I brought them up because they represent cases where majority will is widely rejected as a justification for limiting individual rights. I included several examples that had nothing to do with race, which proves the above to be bullshit. You are just trying to evade the point, because you cannot answer why majority will should have been ignored in these cases, without conceding my point.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Well let me ask you this Stringy... You say you don't like the democratic system of deciding our laws and guidelines, what system do you endorse? Should we consult Stringy's Big Book of Libertarian Ethics? If we want some law passed that doesn't violate one of Stringy's Libertarian Rules of Morality, it's fine... we can pass such laws, but if they violate those rules, we mustn't even think about supporting such measures... IS that your idea?
Because, as best I can tell, there isn't a REAL good way, other than the one we have, where every man gets a voice and a say in what we determine to be the law of the land.
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
I prefer our republican system of liberty under law.
For the most part, I endorse the system we have. You do not, Ditzy. Our system is not one where the will of the majority rules without limits. You are just being willfully ignorant, as usual.
All that needs to be consulted is the Constitution, law and common law. The principles I have noted are derived from those things and I have not referenced anything else. While your position is one common to tyrannical states and those without any limits on government.
Are you going to answers the questions about why the laws I noted, supported by majorities, are not okay? Why is it you keep evading?
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
What is MY position? And what does it have to do with our discussion about what SOCIETY decides?
Liberty
Libertarian Minded
I like your post. If that's what this is? I'm new at this so I'm not quite as educated as most others here are. Concerning the ends and outs at this site.
We already have a public education system. (Local) The only constitutional reason for the federal gov't's involvement is the legal defense of each individuals rights. (Each person that's involved.)
That being said, "If doing away with the DoE is not in the Republican Parties National Platform on this date, It was a few yrs ago."
What if we were arguing the United Nations authority in this matter?
Karl Marx advocated the DoE. (& the 16th amendment)
I say let the states choose for themselves. Instead of one example to choose from, we will have 50. Or 59 or 60 for those who learn from Obama.
Last edited:
And still you evade. Why can't you answer the questions, chicken?
Here is where you start to backpedal and make your retreat to some other discredited argument. Lately, you have argued that laws are justified so long as they are representative of majority will and that any limit on the majority amounts to some sort of convoluted violation of their right to express their views.
Bush killed the DoE plank because he wanted central control of education to push his own views. I don't think it will ever return. The Republicans don't give a crap about federalism or "state's rights." They just want control of the bureaucracy.
Likewise, Obama has shown that he was completely full of shit in criticizing the expansion of Presidential power, which is a very serious threat to limited government. He cares no more about it than Bush did. He just wanted to be the one with the power.
Liberty
Libertarian Minded
I can't disagree with you.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
I don't think I have ever stated anything of the sort, you've merely drawn that interpretation from what was said, because that is how you operate. We do not live in a pure Democracy, and I wouldn't want us to. We do live in a Representative Republic, and while it's not a Democracy, it still depends on a majority viewpoint from the will of the people.
You say that your viewpoint uses the Constitution and common law, but this is predicated on YOUR opinion of what the Constitution says, and how YOU interpret common law. Many people don't agree with your interpretation. If the meaning and intent of the Constitution were that clear and unquestionable, we wouldn't need a SCOTUS or ANY court, for that matter, we could whip out our copy of the Constitution and resolve any disagreement in a matter of a few minutes. That's not reality, that is a fantasy world that YOU live in, not the rest of society. Here in the real world, the meaning and intent of the Constitution is debated daily, some things may take years or decades to understand, it's why they have college courses on Constitutional Law, and why we have thousands of legal scholars out there, pouring over the Constitution, and discussing what it means or what the founders intended it to mean.
I don't answer your Strawman questions because they support a Strawman argument that doesn't pertain to this thread or the topic we are discussing. You want to make comparative examples of past Constitutional injustices, and pretend homosexual same-sex unions somehow fit the same criteria, when they don't. IF it were legal and socially acceptable for same sexes to marry, and we were establishing laws to prohibit homosexuals from participating in that, you would have an appropriate comparative example, but that isn't reality. In short, you seek to create a 'right' that simply never has existed before, and you want to claim some moral high ground in doing so, by drawing false comparisons to past injustices.
For some reason, you think democracy is no way to decide social moral issues, but you fail to tell us what you think would be a better solution... You say, the Constitution... but who's interpretation, yours and libertarians? Are you the only people who get to decide what the Constitution means, and apply it as you see fit to the rest of us? Because, that is exactly what it sounds like you want here.
You don't. They get to express it through their lives and actions, what they say and do, not through legislation. Nor do those who don't follow the same dogma. Legislation does not equal liberty. The founders were smart enough to realize this and to disallow the government from establishing your religious dogma into law.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Yes, that was a post, and this entire 'topic' is in a 'thread' ...there are no 'ins and outs' here, and I wouldn't say you're not as educated as most others here, the bar is set very low, and gets lower every time apple and jarhead post. Basically, if you have passed 8th grade in public school, you are ahead of 'most' posters here.
Regardless of why we have it or what it does (which I am not sure I agree with you on), the problem is in axing it completely, without anything to take its place. You see, a lot of people out there, think the DoE is equal to "educate the children" so any time you start talking crazy talk about eliminating it, the emotive reaction is that of alarm and hysteria. Politically, it is very hard to get elected when you create alarm and hysteria. That's why you aren't going to likely see ANY politician get up there and say... We're gonna cut this and eliminate that... there is always a consequence for ANYTHING you decide to do away with completely, and your opposition will exploit the hell out of that, and the stupid emotive electorate will probably respond, because they don't like to be nervous about what will happen when we do this. It's just how things work in the real world. I am all with you from a philosophical standpoint... we could do without a LOT of the things we're currently doing, but unreasonable draconian extremism is not the best approach to this. I personally believe we should seek solutions from the private sector for these 'needs' which enabled the gov't bureaucracy. But that's just me.... I can work toward reducing the size and scope of government without going nuts and wanting to slash everything at once. Why? Because I am smart enough to realize that is the ONLY way it can be done in a nation full of emotive spoiled nitwits who vote.
Well, there again, some states would vote to keep the DoE because it's a pretty sweet deal for them. I don't think Marx advocated the United States Department of Education or ANY of our Constitutional amendments.... I could be wrong, but I don't think he was around at the time. Yes, they are established on a Marxist Socialist thinking, I understand what you're saying, but what you have to realize is, nearly half this country is brainwashed into thinking Marxist Socialism is the way to go! They're all for it! And while you and other Libertarians sat sulking in your basements on election night, while Social Conservatives held their noses and voted for John McCain, the nitwits of the nation formed a coalition of the stupid and elected Obama! If you are still sulking in your underwear on Election Day 2012, he will be reelected! You need to be deciding if you want to try and work with others to start moving in the direction of limited government, or if you want to revel in your personal ideology and watch us become the United Socialist States of America.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
The Founding Fathers were actually smart enough to establish a clear understanding that our Government can't establish a religion. Because of that guarantee, we most certainly CAN determine our laws and legislation, based on our personal viewpoints, regardless of whether they are influenced by our religious dogma.
EVERY American has the RIGHT to petition for redress of grievances... they are not PROHIBITED because their grievance happens to be a conflict of their religious viewpoints!
Bai Lan
Let It Rot
But more recent leaders have not been smart enough to disallow the government from establishing this religious dogma into law:
George Bush, indicated in Public Law 102-14, 102nd Congress, that the United States of America was founded upon the Seven Universal Laws of Noah
What Are THE SEVEN LAWS OF NOAH?
According to the Pharisees, known today in modern day as Lubavitch Jews, the Noahide Laws are based from their version of the Talmud (Satanic version of the Torah)
let's take a closer look..
1. Idolatry is forbidden. Man is commanded to believe in the One God alone and worship only Him.
IDOLATRY
-against entertaining the thought that there exists a deity except the Lord (to worship Jesus as the Messiah is blasphemy according to the Talmud and punishable by decapitation).
-against making any graven image (and against having anyone else make one for us)
-against making idols for use by others
-against making any forbidden statues (even when they are for ornamental purposes)
-against bowing to any idol (and not to sacrifice nor to pour libation nor to burn incense before any idol, even where it is not the customary manner of worship to the particular idol)
-against worshipping idols in any of their customary manners of worship
-against causing our children to pass (through the fire) in the worship of Molech.
-against practicing Ov
-against the practice of Yiddoni
-against turning to idolatry (in word, in thought, in deed, or by any observance that may draw us to its worship)
2. Incestuous and adulterous relations are forbidden. Human beings are not sexual objects, nor is pleasure the ultimate goal of life.
ILLICIT INTERCOURSE
against (a man) having union with his mother
against (a man) having union with his sister
against (a man) having union with the wife of his father
against (a man) having union with another man's wife
against (a man) copulating with a beast
against a woman copulating with a beast
against (a man) lying carnally with a male
against (a man) lying carnally with his father
against (a man) lying carnally with his father's brother
against engaging in erotic conduct that may lead to a prohibited union
3. Murder is forbidden. The life of a human being, formed in God's image, is sacred.
HOMICIDE
against anyone murdering anyone
4. Cursing the name of God is forbidden. Besides honoring and respecting G-d, we learn from this precept that our speech must be sanctified, as that is the distinctive sign which separated man from the animals.
BLASPHEMY
to acknowledge the presence of God
to fear God
to pray to Him
to sanctify God's name (in face of death, where appropriate)
against desecrating God's name (even in face of death, when appropriate)
to study the Torah
to honor the scholars, and to revere one's teacher
against blaspheming
5. Theft is forbidden. The world is not ours to do with as we please.
THEFT
against stealing
against committing robbery
against shifting a landmark
against cheating
against repudiating a claim of money owed
against overcharging
against coveting
against desiring
a laborer shall be allowed to eat of the fruits among which he works (under certain conditions)
against a laborer eating of such fruit (when certain conditions are not met)
against a laborer taking of such fruit home
against kidnapping
against the use of false weights and measures
against the possession of false weights and measures
that one shall be exact in the use of weights and measures
that the robber shall return (or pay for) the stolen object
6. Eating the flesh of a living animal is forbidden. This teaches us to be sensitive to cruelty to animals. (This was commanded to Noah for the first time along with the permission of eating meat. The rest were already given to Adam in the Garden of Eden.)
LIMB OF A LIVING CREATURE
against eating a limb severed from a living animal, beast, or fowl
against eating the flesh of any animal which was torn by a wild beast ... which, in part, prohibits the eating of such flesh as was torn off an animal while it was still alive
7. Mankind is commanded to establish courts of justice and a just social order to enforce the first six laws and enact any other useful laws or customs.
JUSTICE
to appoint judges and officers in each and every community
to treat the litigants equally before the law
to inquire diligently into the testimony of a witness
against the wanton miscarriage of justice by the court
against the judge accepting a bribe or gift from a litigant
against the judge showing marks of honor to but one litigant
against the judge acting in fear of a litigant's threats
against the judge, out of compassion, favoring a poor litigant
against the judge discriminating against the litigant because he is a sinner
against the judge, out of softness, putting aside the penalty of a mauler or killer
against the judge discriminating against a stranger or an orphan
against the judge hearing one litigant in the absence of the other
against appointing a judge who lacks knowledge of the Law
against the court killing an innocent man
against incrimination by circumstantial evidence
against punishing for a crime committed under duress
that the court is to administer the death penalty by the sword
against anyone taking the law into his own hands to kill the perpetrator of a capital crime
to testify in court
against testifying falsely
* This point is disagreed upon by different writers: "The Noahites are not restricted in this way but may judge singly and at once."
(Note: The Jewish Law, found in Deuteronomy 17:6, requires the testimony of 2 or 3 witnesses before one can be executed. In fact, the last sentence of verse 6 specifically states, "...he shall not be put to death on the evidence of one witness". This should be our first clue that these seven Noahide Laws are nothing more than a clever counterfeit of God's Ten Commandments)
This paves the way for the "Lord" to be defined as to who they define as Lord, and those who don't agree or who refuse to worship their Lord, will be beheaded.
The penalty for violating any of these Noahide Laws is spelled out on page 1192 of the Encyclopedia Judaica, "... violation of any one of the seven laws subjects the Noahide to capital punishment by decapitation." Wow, in other words, if one person steps forward to accuse a Gentile of violating any one of these seven laws, that testimony alone would be enough to decapitate the accused. A person could be put to death for the flimsy accusation of being cruel to animals, and based on the lying testimony of one person!! Notice, there is no assumption of innocence until proven guilty, nor of the prosecution having to prove their case. No, on the accusation of one person, the accused may be legally decapitated.
http://www.thewatcherfiles.com/noahide_laws.html
Bai Lan
Let It Rot
you such a liberal. the biggest thing people say and do to make changes is advocate laws and policy. legislation does equal liberty in a nation of laws.
Socrtease
Verified User
The religious right in this country believes it is the proper role of government to at least look out for our souls. It is why they see legalization of behaviors, such as sodomy as acceptance, because the government can NEVER just be neutral on an issue. It either condones or condemns behavior, never should a government decide that the behavior is merely outside the realm of government interference.
Socrtease
Verified User
Hey stupid! Here is Lieberman's info from the official Senate website:
Lieberman, Joseph I. - (ID - CT) Class I
706 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4041
You should try reading BEFORE speaking,
For everyone else, there is Always more room at the SMIAFM group.
Bai Lan
Let It Rot
But it SHOULD put a tax on energy usage. You're fucked dude.
of course the goverment condones and condemns behavior. You just think no rationale should be permitted as basis for legislation that is religious in nature. But the products of religious thinking can yield policy which is objectively good, and defensible from a non-religious perspective.