|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Pluto
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
|
 Posted: Sat Nov 17, 2007 10:55 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Correct, but it was my understanding that the Supreme Court could overturn Roe V. Wade and give back that decision to the states. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 17, 2007 11:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| us libertarians, the actual ones, not the fake Ron Paul ones. |
Care to clarify this? Provide specific examples. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 17, 2007 11:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pluto wrote: |
| Correct, but it was my understanding that the Supreme Court could overturn Roe V. Wade and give back that decision to the states. |
I would deceive you if I were to say you were wrong. I would also deceive you if I were to say you were right. The principle of Stare Decisis is still subject to the ultimate authority of the Supreme Court justices.
But I wouldn't hold my breath that Roe v. Wade is going to be overturned.
The Supreme Court doesn't like to weaken its own authority by admitting it might have been wrong. Not unless there is some compelling reason to do so.
| thepeel wrote: |
Kuros wrote:
us libertarians, the actual ones, not the fake Ron Paul ones.
Care to clarify this? Provide specific examples. |
Gladly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 17, 2007 11:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Holy crap. How did I miss that post?
Firstly, you are narrowly defining libertarianism in a strict American sense, and even then narrow it down even further to mean one very small branch. That's nuts.
To be a libertarian is the want the individual to be as free from organized violence and coercion as possible. Ron Paul aggressively fights for this, and has for the past many years that I have been following him. He has been welcomed by many libertarian institutions, such as CATO, IHS, FEE, Mises Institute, FIRE and others. He has almost full support of every libertarian I know. Even the quasi-libertarian Jim Rodgers has expressed support for Paul.
That post was fully unrelated to anything. Full of wild assertions (ie: "I allege Ron Paul's pledge for 'strict constructionism' is nothing but a sham") that have little basis in reality.
Ron Paul opposes abortion. I disagree with him. But he does not do it because he wants to violate the civil rights of women, but because he considers the fetus to be a life with rights, and abortion to be a violation of those rights. This is an entirely consistent libertarian principle, from that perspective.
Or nonsense like this:
| Quote: |
I think when Ron Paul calls himself a strict constructionist, we really need to cut through that rhetoric and ask what he means. Ron Paul has said he opposes Lincoln's Civil War. He does not think that the lawfulness or unlawfulness of slavery should have been determined by the Federal system. |
He says the civil war wasn't ultimately about slavery, and to the extent it was, war was the most destructive way to do away with it. I opposed the war in Iraq, and that doesn't mean I secretly love SH.
So, Mr "Libertarian" Kuros. Let's put you through a test.
Your positions on:
1) The war in Iraq
2) The war in Afghanistan
3) The war on drugs
4) The war on poverty
5) Income tax
6) Health care
7) Personal responsibility as a defining legal principle.
8 ) FDA |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 18, 2007 12:02 am Post subject: Ron Paul wins straw vote in Seoul |
|
|
Chalk up another one for Ron!
In the straw vote conducted yesterday during the Republican Thanksgiving Dinner meeting at the USO in Seoul, Ron Paul won with a full 50% of the vote. Giuliani was a distant second with 23% and McCain third with 15%.
The Ron Paul steamroller rolls on! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jinju
Joined: 22 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 18, 2007 12:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| cbclark4 wrote: |
| Who the hell is Ron Paul? |
He is the friend of the Myanmar junta. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 18, 2007 1:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| jinju wrote: |
| cbclark4 wrote: |
| Who the hell is Ron Paul? |
He is the friend of the Myanmar junta. |
Yeah, no. He isn't. Though, I think you are a friend of the Iraqi military Junta, no? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 18, 2007 1:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
In the straw vote conducted yesterday during the Republican Thanksgiving Dinner meeting at the USO in Seoul, Ron Paul won with a full 50% of the vote. Giuliani was a distant second with 23% and McCain third with 15%.
|
Out of curiosity, how many people = 50%? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caniff
Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 18, 2007 2:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Half of them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cbclark4
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 18, 2007 4:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
The Oligarchy � the 1% of each country that owns 50% and more of everything � must pay their fair share, i.e. 50 percent, of taxes � across the board: local & state & federal. Same for the Upper Class, the 20% who now own 83% of everything: their share is 83% of government expenses.
Corporations whose annual profit is more than 15% of net income are white-collar pirates, and such excess profits are taxable at a 75% rate.
While over-population is a problem, breeding is a natural right. However, there is no right to a tax deduction on children or dependents. The tax laws will be altered so that the maximum number of [non-handicapped, non-senior] dependents are locked in at twelve, then ten, then down to two in ten tax years � existing progeny retain the deduction until out of school. After that, Freedom is maintained: have all the children you want, but only two are tax deductible.
http://www.working-minds.com/manifesto.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 18, 2007 7:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
In the straw vote conducted yesterday during the Republican Thanksgiving Dinner meeting at the USO in Seoul, Ron Paul won with a full 50% of the vote. Giuliani was a distant second with 23% and McCain third with 15%.
|
Out of curiosity, how many people = 50%? |
Good question. 13. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Funkdafied
Joined: 04 Nov 2007
Location: In Da House
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 18, 2007 8:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Im not american, but if I were, I would vote for him, and previous to now I would have always voted Democrat. I think he's brilliant. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 19, 2007 2:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| thepeel wrote: |
Holy crap. How did I miss that post?
Firstly, you are narrowly defining libertarianism in a strict American sense, and even then narrow it down even further to mean one very small branch. That's nuts. |
I thought you were a better reader than that, seriously. I'm the one defining libertarian more broadly. IOW, I don't think that Ron Paul represents all libertarians. Moreover, I'm pretty sure that some of his positions would only be embraced by libertarian arch-conservatives. Namely, his abortion policy
| thepeel wrote: |
| To be a libertarian is the want the individual to be as free from organized violence and coercion as possible. Ron Paul aggressively fights for this, and has for the past many years that I have been following him. He has been welcomed by many libertarian institutions, such as CATO, IHS, FEE, Mises Institute, FIRE and others. He has almost full support of every libertarian I know. Even the quasi-libertarian Jim Rodgers has expressed support for Paul. |
Right. So why would a libertarian oppose Roe v. Wade? In Roe v. Wade, Texas tried to keep Jane Roe (fictional name) from aborting her child. The Federal government stepped in and said that a woman's right to choose was Constitutionally protected. The Federal gov't, through the 14th amendment's Due Process Clause, has the authority to prevent individual states from infringing on the rights of citizens, even of citizens of that state. It is one of the most beautiful aspects of American Federalism. It is also DEEPLY libertarian.
| Quote: |
| That post was fully unrelated to anything. Full of wild assertions (ie: "I allege Ron Paul's pledge for 'strict constructionism' is nothing but a sham") that have little basis in reality. |
Did you read the links? See the argument above.
| Quote: |
| Ron Paul opposes abortion. I disagree with him. But he does not do it because he wants to violate the civil rights of women, but because he considers the fetus to be a life with rights, and abortion to be a violation of those rights. This is an entirely consistent libertarian principle, from that perspective. |
Yeah, that's a convincing explanation. And I would accept it, but for Ron Paul's revealing dissatisfaction with Lincoln.
Note that the 14th Amendment was passed right after the Civil War. The Amendment guarenteed the rights of African-Americans as citizens, but African-Americans were not specifically mentioned. The Amendment protects all citizens.
| Quote: |
Or nonsense like this:
| Quote: |
I think when Ron Paul calls himself a strict constructionist, we really need to cut through that rhetoric and ask what he means. Ron Paul has said he opposes Lincoln's Civil War. He does not think that the lawfulness or unlawfulness of slavery should have been determined by the Federal system. |
He says the civil war wasn't ultimately about slavery, and to the extent it was, war was the most destructive way to do away with it. I opposed the war in Iraq, and that doesn't mean I secretly love SH. |
Ah, my post is just absolute nonsense, eh? Let's try to focus on the Civil War, here.
Can't you see the fence being switched? Government intervention IS acceptable when it comes to protect feotuses, but government intervention IS NOT acceptable when it comes to combatting slavery!
The only difference would be that Ron Paul wants States to determine whether or not peoples' rights should be protected. But States do a terrible job of protecting the rights of minorities. Except for liberal Massachusetts, of course.
The Federal Judiciary in recent US history has been a beacon for American civil rights, from Brown v. Board of Ed. to Roe v. Wade to the recent Meredith v. Jefferson Co. decision, which managed to protect both voluntary desegregation programs while permitting white children's parents to choose the education systems best for their children who had special needs.
The Federal Judiciary is more detached from local government, and the justices have lifetime appointments. Given this sort of 'tenure,' they can ignore political expediency and focus on upholding peoples' rights.
| thepeel wrote: |
| He says the civil war wasn't ultimately about slavery, and to the extent it was, war was the most destructive way to do away with it |
Yes. Its a strange argument, isn't it? But ultimately Republican.
War is the most destructive way to do anything, but when the Southern States were freebooting into foreign countries and passing laws to eliminating the Northern States' rights to treat people like people (instead of like chattel), the North had to assert itself.
Again, how a so-called libertarian can oppose one of the most Just wars in all of history shocks me. But then I recall: Ron Paul is a Republican politician, after all.
| thepeel wrote: |
So, Mr "Libertarian" Kuros. Let's put you through a test.
Your positions on:
7) Personal responsibility as a defining legal principle. |
Well, let's see, I believe people have a right to their own beliefs as long as it doesn't impinge on others'. So, I support freedom of religion.
For the rest of your bogus litmus test, go see my candidate:
Richardson on Iraq
Richardson on the Economy
Richardson on Foreign Policy
Richardson on Civil Liberties |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 19, 2007 6:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So, he isn't a libertarian because he has a different opinion on history? Hardly convincing.
Libertarians (or classical liberals) dislike public/private control over the individual as much as possible. There are very broad differences in these opinions, from the anacro-capitalist of Murray Rothbard and Sheldon Richman to the mini-archists, which is basically what Paul is. The field then opens to people like Chomsky (anarco-syndicalist), Bill Maher, Milton Friedman, Hayek and so on. They all disagree on many, many topics, but their primary concern is the sovereignty of the individual. Ron Paul shares that concern as the primary issue of humanity, and for that, he qualifies as a libertarian.
Now, the real question is: Do you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
