Obviously then we can violate other's rights at will since no one's trumps another's.
|
Obviously then we can violate other's rights at will since no one's trumps another's.
Or you could be outraged at violence targeted to gay people for being gay. I can't see a preacher preaching the gospel being held responsible for an idiot.
Tom. why can't you answer your own questions? The answer is obvious. The Founders created a system that was a compromise when it comes to statism and federalism. This was always going to be a problem given enough time.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Not really ,they wrote in safeguards that have been eroded . Now some of them were self inflicted... like the 16th amendment (followed closely by the May 1913 17th which began to carve away at Federalism) .
The 16th amendment states :
That amendment was a big brain fart . It opened the door to the statism and all it's unconstitutional excess that until that point had been relatively contained . It was the progressives wet dream. Direct taxation without apportionment is the very redistributive tool that Karl Marx advocated . (2nd plank of the Communist Manifesto)Quote:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration
Tom, there are no planks to the "Communist Manifesto". Other than those found on on right wing think tanks. But I guess that depends on what you mean by,"planks".Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Really ? Did you read chapter 2 ?
Quote:
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.
Yes I have. I thought you were talking about the "Communist Manifesto"Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I am.. I can't link to the pdf exact text . But here is Wiki...Quote:
. Proletarians and Communists
The second section, "Proletarians and Communists", starts by stating the relationship of conscious communists to the rest of the working class, declaring that they will not form a separate party that opposes other working-class parties, will express the interests and general will of the proletariat as a whole, and will distinguish themselves from other working-class parties by always expressing the common interest of the entire proletariat independently of all nationalities and representing the interests of the movement as a whole.[14]
The section goes on to defend communism from various objections, such as the claim that communists advocate "free love", and the claim that people will not perform labour in a communist society because they have no incentive to work.[14] The section ends by outlining a set of short-term demands: (aka planks )
1.Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2.A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3.Abolition of all right of inheritance.
4.Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5.Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6.Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7.Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8.Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9.Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of the population over the country.
10.Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form and combination of education with industrial production.[15]
The Communist Manifesto - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The implementation of these policies would, as believed by Marx and Engels, be a precursor to the stateless and classless society.[14] In a controversial passage they suggested that the "proletariat" might in competition with the bourgeoisie be compelled to organise as a class, form a revolution, make itself a ruling class, sweep away the old conditions of production, and in that step have abolished its own supremacy as a class.[14] This account of the transition from socialism to communism was criticised particularly during and after the Soviet era.
So you see gay marriage as a communist plot? What are you saying Tom?
Follow the conversation Tal
It started on this tangent when I replied to comment #72
Tom can I take you back to your original statement-to which I was responding:
"Direct taxation without appointment is the very redistributive tool that Marx advocated" . I would have thought that the reference to taxation outlined in the "Manifesto" was a prediction on the part of Marx.
Over to you.
So as I suspected, you are conflating gay marriage to government expansion, or intrusion in to the accepted traditional social fabrics that you are more comfortable with. I can understand your fear of the governing proclivities that use to be so fearful to us before, and the conflicts now that fuel that fear, but to be honest, you are lumping many things together that just don't fit.
And that's a rather rigid standard you hold to that's not only exclusionary in principle, but borders on domination. Worse than the communism you decry so much.
Philosophical opinion is great but you cannot ignore the effects on actual people of policy and practice.
Tal, are you under some ridiculous impression that I tolerate violence against gays or something?
Nope, not at all. Just throwing your own attitude right back at you! I mean if you can be bewildered by my lack of outrage at your issues, I wanted to show you why I am outraged on my own issues.
We seem to have outrage on different issues, and that's cool, ain't it?
A 'prediction' rather than a 'means to an end platform ' ? I refer you back to the Wiki link : The section ends by outlining a set of short-term demands:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuttyd
Is Wiki wrong in making that statement ? No ;that is always how I've read the manifesto..
Tal I was commenting to this specific observation by Judy .
Where is that "conflating " gay marriage to government expansion ? You forget ;unlike you statists ,I want the government out of the marriage business. I don't want the government to have the power to shut a small business florist down ;or drag through the courts because the owner has religions objections to gay marriage .Yes ,I compared the legal position that the florist is in to the punitive trampling on the 1st amendment rights of the TeaParty and conservative groups by the IRS and the political wing of the White House .Quote:
Having your business sued, getting that publicity (lots of people have gay friends/relatives), having to pay an Attorney and traipse back and forth to Court, possibly having your business "frozen" while it plays out - any/all of these factors would scare me straight!
So yes ,the comparisons are valid... they do fit.
Its not government getting involved in peoples business its people who are involving the government in their business. I mean if the people hadn't made a stink about gay marriage you wouldn't need a judge to settle the conflicts now would we?
I mean when you make every dog gone thing under the sun a moral crisis and a scandal with selective high soaring rhetoric you force a reaction from the ones you holler about. What do you expect a gay guy to do who wants to come out into the real world and get some sun and you are keeping the closet door shut. Yes its like the IRS controversy that all of a sudden is about YOUR rights to form a group that doesn't pay taxes but can change elections.
Now you want to change the whole policy and process to fit your needs and get what YOU want, but the unintended consequence of skating and manipulating the law by both sides may be changing and reforming those laws, policies, and procedures and practices for fairness.
I note when your side did have power you did none of those things. We didn't either, but we were fighting you guys for the last 5 years to get your mess cleaned up. Not an excuse but the mess was much bigger than anyone though, and we needed more than a mop and bucket.
So while we can appreciate the mundane philosophy of thinking long gone by thinkers long gone in a different situation entirely, fact remains we have gone well beyond the hollering arguing stage and need to proceed into the actual make it work better phase.
Can't you guys work while you are hollering? At least get out of the door way and let the gay folks be happy.
Tal ,if you don't want the constitution and the government founded on that constitution to protect the rights guaranteed in it , you can say it in less than a 5 paragraph rant.
Less time protect rights against the boogey man and more time cleaning up our messes. How's that?
I agree. So how about you stop making all the messes you have been and we will go back to small government. Instead of the cradle to grave mentality that you want to force upon everyone. Talk about looking for boogyman everywhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
What year was that you want us to go back to?
Michelle Bachmann was a nutcase, I'm glad her and Sarah Palin are out of the picture. Any straight people who feel threatened by gay marriage need to get a life and mind their own business.
Lets start with this year and strip back the layers until we get lean and mean with laws that make sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
It is peoples business if they are being forced into a situation by the barrel of a gun or threat of a lawsuit.Quote:
Originally Posted by earl237
Do you have any examples of anyone being forced by threats of a lawsuit?Quote:
Originally Posted by cdad
Have you read through this thread? It has been a central part of the debate.Quote:
Originally Posted by earl237
The woman florist in Washington and the photographer in N.Y.
Even a private business can't refuse to do business based on race, religion or ethnic background, I'm pretty sure the florist would not be allowed to shun an interracial or interfaith marriage so why should sexual orientation still be allowed to get the "back of the bus" treatment?
She didn't, she based it on religious convictions. She had hired gays before and previously sold flowers to these same people on other occasions.Quote:
Originally Posted by earl237
Tom, no-one is interested in this except, perhaps the two of us. So I'll be brief. And yes, it has nothing to do with this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
The wiki quote is too brief and ignores the paragraph just above the so called list of demands. The ignored paragraph being:
These measures will be different in different countries.However, in advanced countries the following will be pretty generally applicable.
Marx is saying that the revolution will take on different characteristics in different countries. The list are possible combinations of factors that are likely to be seen.
Tom, have you actually read chapter 2, or just gone with the wiki interpretation?
Where is progressive taxation discussed in this chapter? Where does it say that progressive taxation is a demand?The chapter is largely devoted to the idea of political revolution before economic revolution. Now, I think Marx is inconsistent in this chapter on this particular issue, but that's a different story. Nonetheless, it is in keeping with his overall "materialist conception of history"
The list represents, 'sign posts' to look out for.
Oh ;so he was just being a wise soothsayer... he did not see these steps as a move towards his utopia ? I think he did .
I'll quote the 2 chapters above the list and the list
Love this line " by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable".. and yet the left still champions these remedies.Quote:
The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.
Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production.
These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.
Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.
His opinion, none of which has anything to do with gay marriage or the bad behavior because of religious convictions. That's the crux of this whole topic, forcing some ones convictions on another without respect and demanding respect for that conviction.
Like ex said, no one's rights trump another's so the gay wedding does not trump her religious rights. But that's the rub, the left - including ex based on his own arguments - does believe certain rights trump others, as in forcing pharmacists to sell abortifacients and forcing religious organizations to buy birth control.Quote:
Originally Posted by earl237
This couple isn't harmed by this particular florist not doing the wedding, they have options. The LGBT community and their crusaders don't believe others should have an option, they demand acceptance and accommodation regardless of anyone else's rights. Sorry, my rights are no less important than theirs.
It's not bad behavior to exercise your first amendment rights. It's bad behavior in forcing someone to violate their religious beliefs to accommodate yours. You've got it bass ackwards.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
You have a right to your convictions and they have a right to seek redress in a court. Explain it to the judge.
So who did you mean was "forcing some ones convictions on another without respect and demanding respect for that conviction." The gay couple or the florist?Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Hello again, Steve:Seems to me that BOTH of them are, but that's because I'm a liberal thinker.. I'm sure you believe that only ONE of the parties are honorable.Quote:
So who did you mean was "forcing some ones convictions on another without respect and demanding respect for that conviction." The gay couple or the florist?
Excon
It was a general statement about religious convictions and blatant discrimination. I mean seems to me the way you handle your convictions is a important as a right to them, and even more so when presented with a people who already feel their rights are denied. Maybe they are a bit sensitive, and maybe the other side of it is not enough sensitivity.
Their has to be a balance in the empathy and respect of all our rights, and hollering gay people have none, or only those you say they have doesn't garner respect, as black people resented being told to go to the back of the bus.
Bottom line you cannot holler your rights without respecting the rights of others in my opinion.
I never holler
The florist gave referrals and was gracious about it, what more do you want? The AG is being an a$$ for suing someone for exercising their religious rights.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, Steve:
I KNEW you'd think only one party was honorable.. I suppose you think the gay couple should have just taken their seat in the back of the bus... I mean they should have just taken the referrals and kept QUIET...Quote:
The florist gave referrals and was gracious about it, what more do you want? The AG is being an a$$ for suing someone for exercising their religious rights.
My friend, graciousness has NOTHING to do with rights.. The law does.
What if I was VERY gracious with a black patron in my restaurant, and offered him an excellent meal in the kitchen? Or what if I went out of my way, being gracious, of course, and made a reservation for him at one of the black restaurants down the street? Would that be cool with you?
Excon
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:57 PM. |