User Tag List

First 6141516171826 Last

Results 151 to 160 of 268

  1. #151
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    But you need to use solid legal reasoning to do so.

    And that is not solid legal reasoning.
    No you don't. You need solid moral reasoning. Otherwise women would not have the right to vote.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  2. #152
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    No you don't. You need solid moral reasoning. Otherwise women would not have the right to vote.
    You should read what I wrote again. I added some stuff.

    That was done legislatively, via the 19th Amendment.

    If it had been done judicially, it would have required solid legal reasoning (as I said).

  3. #153
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    You should read what I wrote again. I added some stuff.

    That was done legislatively, via the 19th Amendment.

    If it had been done judicially, it would have required solid legal reasoning (as I said).
    Judges don't change the law, they interpret it (often idiotically...corporations are not people and money =/= speech, assholes).
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  4. #154
    ReflecTcelfeR
    Guest

    Default

    It's that "between" word...

  5. #155
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    Judges don't change the law, they interpret it.
    I'm not sure if what you said is at odds with anything that I said.

    I will add that, by interpeting the law, they, in a sense, can change it.

    And that some judges try to change the law, in this way, more than others.

    What I said about the legal reasoning, as presented, not being sound, still stands.

  6. #156
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Originally Posted by andante
    Considering how he's pro capital punishment and pro laissez-faire market, the dude's all over the map. Apparently his hypocratic oath = hypocritical oath.
    Ron Paul believes states should be able to decide the issue, and he is AGAINST a federal death penalty.


    Originally Posted by andante
    He does believe that the Federal government should stay out of the decision for same-sex marriages. But he also supports the right for States to refuse to recognise same-sex marriages or unions from other States. In other words, he believes States right should trump everything else, which would allow more conservative States to retain their bigotry.
    The government isn't supposed to be in the marriage game to begin with, so this position doesn't really bother me. Most of this issue revolves around the (unfair) benefits written into tax codes and benefit policies, anyway.


    Originally Posted by Lark
    I think Ron Paul is on the extreme right wing of the political spectrum, his vision predates any sort of organised societal level relief of poverty and most other aspects of modern economies or states, its not centre ground.

    Unless you think the Amish are centre ground.
    Unless YOU think "organised" necessarily means "implemented by force up to an including at gunpoint," then you're wrong. And, if you do, that's creepy and fascistic.


    Evolution
    He's a very religious man. I am not, but I really do not care. I'd vote for a fundie, an atheist, even a Satanist if I thought he or she would be the best choice. Also, he's a medical doctor. It's not as if he doesn't believe in science at all.


    Originally Posted by Blank
    One problem with that is that people will involuntarily lose some of their rights while they cross state boarders. Imagine going on a road trip and suddenly getting pulled over because of a state-specific law that's discriminatory in nature. Also, the idea that people would freely move or walk away from their homes, many of which could be inherited is ludicrous, don't you think? In my opinion, such ideas only lead to the increase of rifts between people, which only promotes discord and noncooperation. We need to work together, not struggle and tear ourselves apart.

    That being said, I like a lot of Ron Paul's views (accountability, non-interventionalism, no nation-building, etc.) but I'm more inclined to believe in more socialistic ideals.
    Again, "work together" doesn't mean "forcefully make every state the same." They are supposed to compete with one another as laboratories of democracy, are they not? The states are charged with having their own legal codes already, anyway.


    Originally Posted by fia
    If it were only the government's power vs. the individual we would be living in a different world. It is governmental power vs. corporate power. Individuals are losing freedom and power at the hands of both. Giving the states more power actually makes it easier for corporations to take control because the same money, influence and power goes much further at that level than at the federal level. State control is not equivalent to individual freedom.
    This is a whole boatload of wrong. Limiting governmental power helps to limit corporate control, because it helps to eliminate the impetus to corrupt the system. American history proves that moneyed interest USE the government to their own ends.


    The original plan for the U.S. was to balance the large power structures so that nothing could take complete control.
    Not really. Why do you say that? The "original plan" for the U.S. was to have a limited government that had checks and balances. There were disagreements among the Founding Fathers about issues like banks, the role of the states, etc.

    At that time there was not consideration given to the mega-corporation. It is a new power structure not accounted for in the constitution and as a result is throwing off the equilibrium.
    East India Companies ring a bell? This is nonsense.


    U.S. politics are set up as a win-win for corporations. With the Republicans (or possibly Libertarians) they win by privatizing profits, and when the Democrats are in they win by socializing debt.
    Profits are only private to begin with. What does "privatizing profits" mean in this context?


    Yussa Tampon
    Advocacy for leaving more stuff to the states is advocacy for giving us a chance to let mistakes like Orval Faubus happen. I will not be one to support such a position, and thus Paul fails my litmus.
    It also leads to decriminalization of marijuana, marriage equality, abolition of slavery, etc. This is one of the stupidest litmus tests I've ever read.


    Originally Posted by dala
    My problem with Paul's policies (not Paul himself) is that we look at economics in fundamentally different ways. Paul seems to believe in what is essentially an economic free-for-all. Need medicine or food or protection? The market will provide. He appears to be absolutely confident of this, to the point where he is okay with throwing out hundreds of years' worth of consumer and worker protections and social safety nets.
    There was no food or medicine or protection before the government was involved? Jesus, this line of thinking is ridiculous. And the man is a medical doctor, remember? There is a lower percentage of people covered by health insurance since the implementation of Medicare and Medicaid, BTW.


    The problem is that history shows repeatedly and emphatically that not the case. An unregulated food industry gives you tainted baby formula. Unregulated banking gives you the current recession. Unregulated working conditions give you sweatshops. Unregulated policing gives you countless abuses. The reality is that there are information and power imbalances throughout society, and people in an unregulated environment will naturally take advantage of these.
    A regulated food industry gives us tainted baby formula still. Banking was and is one of the MOST regulated industries in the country, and we still got the recession (it was NOT deregulation or lack of regulation that caused it, at all). And what is "unregulated policing" exactly?
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  7. #157
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    Banking was and is one of the MOST regulated industries in the country, and we still got the recession (it was NOT deregulation or lack of regulation that caused it, at all).
    Actually, yeah it was (partially, at least).

    There were a lot of reasons, though (including regulation).

    (And this is coming from someone who, if forced to pledge allegiance to a political party, would begrudgingly do so to the libertarians.)

  8. #158
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    I'm not sure if what you said is at odds with anything that I said.

    I will add that, by interpeting the law, they, in a sense, can change it.

    And that some judges try to change the law, in this way, more than others.

    What I said about the legal reasoning, as presented, not being sound, still stands.
    My point was, when I said "That's why they're trying to change the law", I wasn't talking about the judicial system (obviously), so I don't know why you brought that up in a response to my post in the first place.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  9. #159
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    My point was, when I said "That's why they're trying to change the law", I wasn't talking about the judicial system (obviously), so I don't know why you brought that up in a response to my post in the first place.
    Got it.

    I was confused as to your meaning, as all the prior discussion had been about the judicial proceedings.

    If you were only talking about legislative changes, then I agree, and believe that's how it should be done.

    As such, I think it's wrong how the courts have dealt with prop 8 in California (my home state).

    And, once again, for the ignorami reading this: I'm not actually against gay marriage.

  10. #160
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    Actually, yeah it was (partially, at least).

    There were a lot of reasons, though (including regulation).

    (And this is coming from someone who, if forced to pledge allegiance to a political party, would begrudgingly do so to the libertarians.)
    I could see you saying "lack of oversight," but there is a shit-ton of regulation in the banking industry. Greed, bad federal housing policy, bad monetary policy, lack of transparency, all certainly. But that industry is regulated out the wazoo compared to, say, software. Even the Glass-Steagal repeal wouldn't have been dangerous IF there were other legislative adjustments made at the same time. Instead, we got a greenlight for an industry with insanely high barriers of entry AND an implicit (later, explicit) guarantee of bailout protection. That isn't a dearth of regulation.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

Similar Threads

  1. [MBTItm] NF, How Are You NOT Like Your Type Description?
    By SquirrelTao in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 115
    Last Post: 08-27-2017, 05:28 PM
  2. [SJ] SJ, How Are You NOT Like Your Type Description?
    By SquirrelTao in forum The SJ Guardhouse (ESFJ, ISFJ, ESTJ, ISTJ)
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 06-04-2017, 06:25 PM
  3. [SP] SP, How Are You NOT Like Your Type Description?
    By SquirrelTao in forum The SP Arthouse (ESFP, ISFP, ESTP, ISTP)
    Replies: 103
    Last Post: 05-15-2017, 03:39 AM
  4. Anyone who thinks Ron Paul Shouldn't be President is completly stupid or ignorant...
    By Munchies in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 152
    Last Post: 01-13-2012, 01:47 PM
  5. [NT] NT, How Are You NOT Like Your Type Description?
    By SquirrelTao in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 78
    Last Post: 09-27-2008, 05:05 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO