Ron Paul Supporters not welcome in Louisiana GOP

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Sat Jul 07, 2012 2:15 am

GIThruster wrote:Also note that we here in the US understand that all powers not expressly given the federal authorities necessarily remain with the states, who are perfectly within their rights to create mandates if they wish. That power is not in the constitution, so it is really a violation of the constitution to grant it to the federal government.

Doesn't matter. Constitutional law has been out of vogue for quite some time now.


No kidding. As I understand it you don't even support it. You like Federal Drug Prohibition and yet you can't point to the Drug Prohibition Amendment.

Conservatives around 1900 were aghast at the idea that the Government could outlaw substances without changing the Constitution. The "liberals" got around that one by calling it a tax. Heh.

Strict Constitutionalist Timothy Leary got the "tax law" overturned by the Supreme Court. The Current fig leaf is "Commerce Clause". Hilarious.

We don't have a Conservative party these days. We have two wings of the Progressive Party (the originators of the Prohibition idea). Both parties have their favorite usurpations. Defcon-LULZ

The closest we come to a 1900s Conservative in National politics is Justice Clarence Thomas. The ironies multiply.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

williatw
Posts: 1828
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:15 pm
Location: Ohio

Postby williatw » Sat Jul 07, 2012 3:55 am

MSimon wrote:
GIThruster wrote:Also note that we here in the US understand that all powers not expressly given the federal authorities necessarily remain with the states, who are perfectly within their rights to create mandates if they wish. That power is not in the constitution, so it is really a violation of the constitution to grant it to the federal government.

Doesn't matter. Constitutional law has been out of vogue for quite some time now.


No kidding. As I understand it you don't even support it. You like Federal Drug Prohibition and yet you can't point to the Drug Prohibition Amendment.

Conservatives around 1900 were aghast at the idea that the Government could outlaw substances without changing the Constitution. The "liberals" got around that one by calling it a tax. Heh.

Strict Constitutionalist Timothy Leary got the "tax law" overturned by the Supreme Court. The Current fig leaf is "Commerce Clause". Hilarious.

We don't have a Conservative party these days. We have two wings of the Progressive Party (the originators of the Prohibition idea). Both parties have their favorite usurpations. Defcon-LULZ

The closest we come to a 1900s Conservative in National politics is Justice Clarence Thomas. The ironies multiply.


Think there was also an international treaty that we were signatory to in the early 20th century about outlawing international opium trafficking. There were provisions that applied domestically that were used to get the ball rolling. Kinda similiar to how they are trying to use the UN small arms treaty if they can get it through the Senate to do "stealth approach" to gun control in the US.

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Sat Jul 07, 2012 4:22 am

williatw wrote:
MSimon wrote:
GIThruster wrote:Also note that we here in the US understand that all powers not expressly given the federal authorities necessarily remain with the states, who are perfectly within their rights to create mandates if they wish. That power is not in the constitution, so it is really a violation of the constitution to grant it to the federal government.

Doesn't matter. Constitutional law has been out of vogue for quite some time now.


No kidding. As I understand it you don't even support it. You like Federal Drug Prohibition and yet you can't point to the Drug Prohibition Amendment.

Conservatives around 1900 were aghast at the idea that the Government could outlaw substances without changing the Constitution. The "liberals" got around that one by calling it a tax. Heh.

Strict Constitutionalist Timothy Leary got the "tax law" overturned by the Supreme Court. The Current fig leaf is "Commerce Clause". Hilarious.

We don't have a Conservative party these days. We have two wings of the Progressive Party (the originators of the Prohibition idea). Both parties have their favorite usurpations. Defcon-LULZ

The closest we come to a 1900s Conservative in National politics is Justice Clarence Thomas. The ironies multiply.


Think there was also an international treaty that we were signatory to in the early 20th century about outlawing international opium trafficking. There were provisions that applied domestically that were used to get the ball rolling. Kinda similiar to how they are trying to use the UN small arms treaty if they can get it through the Senate to do "stealth approach" to gun control in the US.


Yes. Once you start changing the law for convenience things often get very inconvenient. Conservatives used to know this. Which is why I say that what we call "Conservatives" these days are not. They may not be as progressive as the Progressives but they are definitely enablers.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

hanelyp
Posts: 2253
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 8:50 pm

Postby hanelyp » Sat Jul 07, 2012 5:15 am

As I read the US constitution, the federal government has little if any authority over most activity taking place strictly within the bounds of a single State. This includes the manufacture, marketing, and usage of drugs, even if the drug in question is a blight on humanity. I would still hope individual States take action to protect themselves from a plague of chemically impaired persons. Once commerce crosses state lines it becomes much harder to make the case against regulation under the Interstate Commerce clause.

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:04 pm

I would still hope individual States take action to protect themselves from a plague of chemically impaired persons.


Me too. I'm looking for a ban by States of the most dangerous drug of them all. Alcohol. And the legalization of pot as a substitute:

http://healthland.time.com/2011/12/02/w ... ic-deaths/
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Teahive
Posts: 362
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 10:09 pm

Postby Teahive » Sat Jul 07, 2012 4:01 pm

Diogenes wrote:Compromise is okay with things of no great import, but not with fundamental principles. Republicans have been compromising, and the Liberal ratchet effect has been going on for many decades now, and each year the demand for more compromise is just splitting the previous year's difference. The net effect is we keep moving left year after year after year.

From an outsider perspective it is amusing how both sides throw similar accusations at each other, just pointing to different issues.

pbelter
Posts: 183
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 2:52 am

Postby pbelter » Sat Jul 07, 2012 4:05 pm

Skipjack wrote:
In the Roman Empire, a slave working outside of his master household was entitled to keep 10% of his earnings.
At least he could hope to save up to buy himself out of slavery.

We can't.

But we have a voice (vote) in choosing our slavers. They hadnt.
Also, you can always leave the country and move somewhere else, if you think it is better there. They could not do that either.


That's true, our system is still better, the problem is that it becomes comparable. It shouldn't be.

I actually lived in several countries and I am quite familiar with immigration rules. It took me 9 years to complete all the requirements to become US citizen, and compared with my professional colleagues that also did employment based immigration that is quicker than most. A friend of mine that arrived in the US within months of me still has 5 years to go before he can even apply to become citizen because some bureaucrat somewhere interpreted his paperwork differently than mine was. A handful of countries like Singapore or Canada have much easier immigration rules but in most places it is even worse. As a Roman slave I would be 90% paid off now, heh.
So yes theoretically you can move elsewhere, but in practice it is not very feasible and what if that elsewhere changes in the middle of the process like the US changed under Obama?

Now I have a vote, so let me try in November to see whether it works. The free Romans did have a vote and that developed a system called "Bread and Circuses" that led to the downfall of their republic. Here is what Wikipedia defines it:

"Bread and Circuses" (or bread and games) (from Latin: panem et circenses) is a metaphor for a superficial means of appeasement. Juvenal decried it as a simplistic motivation of common people and hence the political strategy implied.[1] In the case of politics, the phrase is used to describe the creation of public approval, not through exemplary or excellent public service or public policy, but through diversion, distraction, and/or the mere satisfaction of the immediate, shallow requirements of a populace.


Sounds familiar?

Skipjack
Posts: 6014
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Postby Skipjack » Sat Jul 07, 2012 5:32 pm

Well, you can live in a country quite well without being an actual citizen (e.g. with a permanent visa). It is pretty easy to immigrate into most European countries.

williatw
Posts: 1828
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:15 pm
Location: Ohio

Postby williatw » Sat Jul 07, 2012 6:34 pm

pbelter wrote:
"Bread and Circuses" (or bread and games) (from Latin: panem et circenses) is a metaphor for a superficial means of appeasement. Juvenal decried it as a simplistic motivation of common people and hence the political strategy implied.[1] In the case of politics, the phrase is used to describe the creation of public approval, not through exemplary or excellent public service or public policy, but through diversion, distraction, and/or the mere satisfaction of the immediate, shallow requirements of a populace.

Sounds familiar?

That's why we are a democratic republic rather than a democracy. Some of the founder's original idea was to restrict the franchise to male property owners(yes largely white males not saying they weren't racist/sexist). It wasn't so much a money thing as the thought that you should demonstrate some degree of competence in managing your own affairs before you should be trusted to make decisions with the grownups. Somewhat like the idea of the franchise in Heinlein's Starship Troopers. The founders knew the idea of the gov as wise parent and the people as children inevitably was used to rationalize authoritarian despotism, but they also understood the flaws of the masses. As someone here as said, the founders were well versed in the flaws of human nature and tried to have controls against it. They understood and tried to learn from the failures of the earlier Greek democracies as well as the later Roman Republic.

Skipjack
Posts: 6014
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Postby Skipjack » Sat Jul 07, 2012 6:39 pm

That's why we are a democratic republic rather than a democracy. Some of the founder's original idea was to restrict the franchise to male property owners(yes largely white males not saying they weren't racist/sexist). It wasn't so much a money thing as the thought that you should demonstrate some degree of competence in managing your own affairs before you should be trusted to make decisions with the grownups. Somewhat like the idea of the franchise in Heinlein's Starship Troopers. The founders knew the idea of the gov as wise parent and the people as children inevitably was used to rationalize authoritarian despostism, but they also understood the flaws of the masses. As someone here as said, the founders were well versed in the flaws of human nature and tried to have controls against it. They understood and tried to learn from the failures of the earlier Greek democracies as well as the later Roman Republic.

Sounds like you are advocating an oligarchy. Of course oligarchies tend to deterriorate into either dictatorships or feudal systems of sorts.
These then trigger revolts and the cycle starts anew. The US is a young country and has not gone through any of the other systems yet. I guess the phrase "everyone has to make their own mistakes in order to learn" is valid in this regard as well.

I am not saying that a democracy is the perfect system, or that it is always fair towards everyone, but after thousands of years it has kinda crystallized as the best of all that we have tried.

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Postby GIThruster » Sat Jul 07, 2012 7:09 pm

Oh gees, a stinky case of European snobbery lobbed atop william's utterly wrong recounting of history. How sad.

You both sounds as if you had no idea where the notion of a republic comes from, and to call it an oligarchy is just batty.

How can you guys chant on and on about stuff you know nothing about?
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Sat Jul 07, 2012 9:31 pm

Teahive wrote:
Diogenes wrote:Compromise is okay with things of no great import, but not with fundamental principles. Republicans have been compromising, and the Liberal ratchet effect has been going on for many decades now, and each year the demand for more compromise is just splitting the previous year's difference. The net effect is we keep moving left year after year after year.

From an outsider perspective it is amusing how both sides throw similar accusations at each other, just pointing to different issues.


One philosophy. Two parties.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

williatw
Posts: 1828
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:15 pm
Location: Ohio

Postby williatw » Sun Jul 08, 2012 1:27 am

GIThruster wrote:How can you guys chant on and on about stuff you know nothing about?

I don't know guess we learned from the best...how's that Woodward effect working out?

TDPerk
Posts: 976
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 12:55 pm
Location: Northern Shen. Valley, VA
Contact:

Postby TDPerk » Sun Jul 08, 2012 2:07 pm

The Woodward Effect seems to be quite real. There are no properly performed null results, the properly performed results agree with theory.

I hope sincerely that Woodward or March will demonstrate scaling with frequency. The results will I think be incontrovertible, even to those now theoretically opposed.

Nothing will do for those philosophically opposed.
molon labe
montani semper liberi
para fides paternae patria

WizWom
Posts: 371
Joined: Fri May 07, 2010 1:00 pm
Location: St Joseph, MO
Contact:

Postby WizWom » Sun Jul 08, 2012 3:35 pm

If the power source (with no outside input) is not part of the masses apparatus, they are NOT performing a closed experiment, and are getting a local effect from moving mass in the system.

Like I said, Woodward's not a "respected scientist".
Wandering Kernel of Happiness


Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests