Comments Posted By Six
Displaying 1 To 10 Of 15 Comments

DEFENDING POLANSKI: 'IT'S NOT RAPE-RAPE'

Good point DoorHold. If you changed 'Director Roman Polanski' to 'Father Roman Polanski' I think you'd see quite a different reaction from the apologists.

Comment Posted By Six On 29.09.2009 @ 22:21

CHANGE IS GOOD

Lucky is a real cutie Rick. Congratulations on the new addition.

Comment Posted By Six On 27.09.2009 @ 16:47

YOUNG, STUPID THINK PROGRESS RESEARCHER LOSES SANITY IN PUBLIC

"The Army was to come from the State Militias, to be called up as necessary for the defence of the Nation, and then disbanded back to the Militias once the need had passed."

Wrong. The Founders acknowledged the necessity of a standing Army and took pains to ensure civilian control (President as Commander In Chief). If they didn't envision a standing army why enumerate the President as CinC and civilian control. If there was to be no standing army why even mention civilian control at all? The Militias were State run, not federal. The Militia was meant to supplement the Standing Army because it was supposed to be being small, not replace it. I do agree with you that the Founders had major concerns about a standing army. They believed they had sufficient controls in place to avoid a military take over.

"What the hell does that mean? The terms of the Constitution were designed to work within the Constitution? Well . . . yes. So the “general welfare” was not designed to promote the “public welfare”? What’s the difference between “general” and “public”?"

At the time the Constitution was adopted, some interpreted the clause as granting Congress a broad power to pass any legislation it pleased, so long as its asserted purpose was promotion of the general welfare. One of the Constitution's drafters, James Madison (again!), objected to this reading of the clause, arguing that it was inconsistent with the concept of a government of limited powers and that it rendered the list of enumerated powers redundant. He argued that the General Welfare clause granted Congress no additional powers other than those enumerated. Thus, in their view the words themselves served no practical purpose. I freely acknowledge that there is case law that out there that sets a different prescedent. I just disagree. It's my opinion, one I am still allowed to express.

Comment Posted By Six On 27.09.2009 @ 19:09

"No . . . that’s not correct, and I’m pretty sure you know that. “Profits be damned — let’s kill everybody” is just silly."

Look up the definition of 'sarcasm'.

"Let me ask you this: can you give me an example of un-regulated capitalism inherently reaching an equitable equilibrium? One? The examples of de-regulated capitalism becoming destructive are legion. If you can’t give a single example of unfettered capitalism “working” in equilibrium . . . then why the hell would I expect it to work now?"

"Unregulated Networking Industry Thrives In Retail"
http://www.retailsolutionsonline.com/article.mvc/Unregulated-Networking-Industry-Thrives-In-Re-0001?VNETCOOKIE=NO

How about internet business? E-Bay doing well? Yahoo? Google?

No one wants a return to the robber barons but I see unfettered capitalism as an answer to most of our problems. Under Reagan, America experienced job growth and an increase in the standard of living never before or since reproduced. Take off the shackles and watch the private sector go.

Comment Posted By Six On 27.09.2009 @ 16:42

"Another hypothetical:"

Another term for hypothetical is straw man. You can demonstrate anything you want. What if the sire department is all volunteer and late to respond? What if their equipment is outdated and doesn't work properly and the fire fighters and poorly trained and your business goes up in flames anyway? My point is that it's not the governments responsibility to provide an equity of outcome, only opportunity. Success or failure is an individual responsibility. Government literally cannot guarantee everyone will always come out ahead so if they can't for everyone who gets to choose who wins and who fails?

"‘. . . and general welfare’

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1:"

My reading of Constitutional history leads me to believe the framers were talking about promoting the general welfare within the bounds of the Constitution, not trying to promote public welfare programs outside their intent. Promote the general welfare is a crutch used by the left to defend programs that are extra-constitutional at best. No, health care is not constitutionally defensible as general welfare.

"Since we’re playing Tenther games here, I’ll also note that Art.1, Sec.8, Cl.12-13 make pretty clear that a standing Army is Constitutionally prohibited — so I can assume you demand that the United States Army be abolished?"

"In its totality, the Convention arrived at a very important set of decisions concerning military matters with relatively little disagreement. The delegates were able to resolve the thorny issue of potential abuses of power by inserting the Army, Navy, and militia into the same carefully structured set of checks and balances that applied throughout the Constitution. To promote efficiency, it placed the regulars under the national government, at the same time providing for a dual system of defense by dividing responsibility over the much larger militia establishment with the states. While the national government might employ the militia for the common defense, that authority was checked by the states, which retained authority to appoint their militia officers and to supervise the peacetime training of citizen-soldiers. The Founders were able to create a standing army, the hobgoblin of the Anglo-Saxon world for more than a century, by establishing much tighter civilian control over the armed forces than existed in any contemporary European country. A civilian President served as Commander in Chief; the Senate had to concur in the appointment of all senior officers; and the House of Representatives controlled financial resources. Furthermore, Mason's inclusion of a provision for limiting appropriations for the military to two years made the legislature a full partner with the executive in military matters."
"http://www.history.army.mil/books/RevWar/ss/ch4.htm

Read and learn.

Comment Posted By Six On 27.09.2009 @ 16:29

"BTW, I don’t believe there’s anything in the Constitution that requires anyone to be a citizen in order to live here. I’d be happy to be directed to that “mandate” in the Constitution if anyone cares to so direct me."

No one said that. YOU said being a citizen is unconstitutional. Do try and stay consistent with your arguments.

"So those laws, as is the 16th amendment, are constitutional in your view? Therefore, the government, through the proper constitutional procedures, does indeed have the right to mandate that the people do or pay for certain things."

Do? Yes. Pay? Maybe. Income tax has been ruled as Constitutional so there certainly is prescedent. So, if you want mandated health care all you have to do is get a Constitutional amendment and I'll argue it's legal. Simple, no?

Comment Posted By Six On 27.09.2009 @ 16:11

"Sooo, the government has no constitutional power to mandate mandates, eh? That would make the military draft unconstitutional. It would make the requirement to register to vote unconstitutional. It would make actually being a citizen unconstitutional. This is a fun game. Anyone have any other unconstitutional mandates under which we currently suffer?"

Fail. The Conscription Act was passed in 1917 and the Supreme Court ruled in 1918 that it was not unconstitutional.

Fail. The United States Voting Rights Act of 1965 outlawed literacy tests and provided for federal registration of African-American voters in areas that had less than 50% of eligible voters registered. It was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson on August 6, 1965.
Epic Fail. Make being a citizen unconstitutional? You have to be kidding me. No one is that ignorant.

You're right, this is fun.

Comment Posted By Six On 27.09.2009 @ 13:55

"Bankrupt them, no. But car companies didn’t spent millions to fight a common sense rule for any other reason other than greed."

I love this kind of reasoning. It's so classically liberal.
Car companies do not pay for new safety features, consumers do.
This just drives me to distraction. Big Business does not reduce profit, they pass costs on to consumers.

If you want to say Big Auto resisted air bags because they're uncaring and want people to die it's actually more intellectually honest than the greed theory.

Tired, liberal rhetoric. Been wrong for 50 years. Be wrong for another 50 I suspect.

Comment Posted By Six On 27.09.2009 @ 10:52

"True, but that doesn’t bother me at all, any more than mandating contributions to Social Security."

I know and that's the pity. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need eh? Where have I heard that before?

"I am not disputing that there is a philosophical argument to be made against the mandate. I am simply saying the people who believe it should be mandated won the last election (pretty handilly I might add) so they intend to set about doing what was run on."

Majority rules?

"That’s how it works in America."

Actually no, it's not. See we're not, not, not a true democracy, we're a Constitutional Representative Republic. Look up Rule Of Law. Government is required to do certain things (i.e. provide for a common defense) and forbidden from doing others (anything and everything not specifically permitted). It's to protect the citizenry from the tyranny of the majority. See, if a majority of people learn they can vote themselves the treasury they will. Rule of law stops that kind of thing. Like mandates.

If you want to trash the Constitution then stop being coy. Step up and declare it. If not then step up and defend the rule of law.

That's how America works.

Comment Posted By Six On 27.09.2009 @ 10:19

"If you don’t want a public option, and you don’t want mandates, and you don’t believe that Americans should be left to die . . . what DO you think is the solution?"

The solution is to de-regulate the industry and allow the free market to work. Allow companies to compete across state lines. In the competition to make a buck you'll see low cost options abound.
Pass comprehensive tort reform. Lawyers are getting rich on the backs of both doctors and insurance customers. I'm not talking about reasonable settlements for people injured by actual malpractice but there's a lot of room for improvement. Something along the lines of loser pays perhaps.

Comment Posted By Six On 26.09.2009 @ 23:04


 


Next page »


Pages (2) : [1] 2


«« Back To Stats Page