• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Less Government vs. Better Government

Less Government or Better Government?


  • Total voters
    57
Uh no. The way it works right now the corporations clean up their own mess, or hire a specialized corperation to clean it for them.

Corporation files for Chapter 11. Who cleans up the mess?
 
Decades of Supreme Court precedent says they are.

yes we know that FDR raped the tenth amendment. However, Alito et al have been slowly rolling some of that crap back
 
So is promoting the general welfare.



"acceptance of gays" — Bigots are free to reject away. If they violate anti-discrimination laws or regulations, appropriate enforcement action will be taken.

"afording retierment, and getting healthcare to the needy" — Social Security, Medicaid, and subsidies under the ACA can be ended at any time. Get the votes
.

Shouldn't be a power of the governement. One should be discriminate as much as they want without fear of the government.
 
Shouldn't be a power of the governement. One should be discriminate as much as they want without fear of the government.

... everybody thinks until discrimination directed at them becomes a permanent part of their existence. If people won't give individuals the respect they require to be functioning and involved members of society, then respect has to be taken by force.
 
... everybody thinks until discrimination directed at them becomes a permanent part of their existence. If people won't give individuals the respect they require to be functioning and involved members of society, then respect has to be taken by force.

They can take it be force, as long they don't use the power of government to do so.
 
... everybody thinks until discrimination directed at them becomes a permanent part of their existence. If people won't give individuals the respect they require to be functioning and involved members of society, then respect has to be taken by force.

disagree. The government should not discriminate. However, if a private business owner chooses not to serve someone-for any reason, that should be his right and the proper repercussion should not be government coercion but rather members of the excluded group-and their supporters-not patronizing the business. In the long run, discrimination that has no rational reason is harmful to the discriminator
 
Not really because National Defense is one the powers the Federal Government has under the Constitution. I would write to them to close down bases all over the world that are not necessary since the fall of the Soviet Union and cut down wasteful military spending yes.

I love it when the big government types pull out "well that means you're in favor of defunding the military", when, if they knew 1/10th of what they think they know, they'd use a different example. The military is the ONE Constitutional area that the goverment MUST perform which is the defense of the country.
 
I love it when the big government types pull out "well that means you're in favor of defunding the military", when, if they knew 1/10th of what they think they know, they'd use a different example. The military is the ONE Constitutional area that the goverment MUST perform which is the defense of the country.

I loved it how he try to target my beloved Corps.
 
disagree. The government should not discriminate. However, if a private business owner chooses not to serve someone-for any reason, that should be his right and the proper repercussion should not be government coercion but rather members of the excluded group-and their supporters-not patronizing the business. In the long run, discrimination that has no rational reason is harmful to the discriminator

Disagreement with 100,000+ years of history is not meaningful. If anyone bothered to actually study the human condition and check the social behaviour of the societies have existed during that time, you would know that disrespecting an individual forces him to either (1) respond with force or (2) accept a lower position in society, beneath you. Chimpanzees work the same way.

For that reason, knocking somebody's hat off their head (rude in a modern context) was considered an offence meriting lethal retaliatory force among Vikings. By knocking his hat off, you outright said you were his superior and that he should defer to your presence and be a lesser being. In some jurisdictions, the case was the same for glaring at somebody or thumbing your nose at them or making up mocking poetry about them.

In the 1960s, decades of tension had built up and blacks had had enough; the other half of the Civil Rights Movement was extremely violent and had the potential to create a low level race war, if the state governments had hit back harder. That's why the federal government and courts acted to stop them.

They can take it be force, as long they don't use the power of government to do so.

Well, that's a kind of society, I guess. I don't see why my world should become substantially more dangerous so that somebody else can be a racist, though. I would rather just bring the hammer of the government down on them and laugh at their dismay.
 
Last edited:
Disagreement with 100,000+ years of history is not meaningful. If anyone bothered to actually study the human condition and check the social behaviour of the societies have existed during that time, you would know that disrespecting an individual forces him to either (1) respond with force or (2) accept a lower position in society, beneath you. Chimpanzees work the same way.

For that reason, knocking somebody's hat off their head (rude in a modern context) was considered an offence meriting lethal retaliatory force among Vikings. By knocking his hat off, you outright said you were his superior and that he should defer to your presence and be a lesser being.

In the 1960s, decades of tension had built up and blacks had had enough; the other half of the Civil Rights Movement was extremely violent and had the potential to create a low level race war, if the state governments had hit back harder. That's why the federal government and courts acted to stop them.



Well, that's a kind of society, I guess. I don't see why my world should become substantially more dangerous so that somebody else can be a racist, though. I would rather just bring the hammer of the government down on them and laugh at their dismay.

I tried hard to find a legitimate argument against what I said and I could not. I am looking through my legal journals to see if there have been any Title VII claims lodged by Chimpanzees. At one time I was the most experienced attorney in that area within a judicial district and I never heard of such a case
 
Well, that's a kind of society, I guess. I don't see why my world should become substantially more dangerous so that somebody else can be a racist, though. I would rather just bring the hammer of the government down on them and laugh at their dismay.

Because a free society is not always the safest. Welcome to Freedom. It can be a double edge sword and I wouldn't have it any other way.
 
However, if a private business owner chooses not to serve someone-for any reason, that should be his right and the proper repercussion should not be government coercion
I tried hard to find a legitimate argument against what I said and I could not.

Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88–352, 78 Stat. 241, enacted July 2, 1964)

An act to enforce the constitutional right to vote, to confer jurisdiction upon the district courts of the United States of America to provide injunctive relief against discrimination in public accommodations, to authorize the Attorney General to institute suits to protect constitutional rights in public facilities and public education, to extend the Commission on Civil Rights, to prevent discrimination in federally assisted programs, to establish a Commission on Equal Employment Opportunity, and for other purposes.
 
I tried hard to find a legitimate argument against what I said and I could not. I am looking through my legal journals to see if there have been any Title VII claims lodged by Chimpanzees. At one time I was the most experienced attorney in that area within a judicial district and I never heard of such a case

The purpose was the show that the impulse had deep roots in the most primal aspects of our biology. Before the 1960s, the blacks had a culture that made them as reliant on whites as all Americans now are on government; if a black offended to the extent to invite the attention of the Klan, they would make the appropriate apologies to the right people.

The 'Black Power' movement mostly ended that. Changes in technology, communications, and social mobility allowed decades of frustration to begin creeping through the veneer of civility that existed between whites and blacks; the Nation of Islam had guns and they weren't going to settle for half measures, a context in which pacifists like Martin Luther King framed their pleas for equality; it was either the government stepped in to supervise the relations between blacks and whites and force them to respect each other (against their will and against the state governments if necessary), or a race war.

Because a free society is not always the safest. Welcome to Freedom. It can be a double edge sword and I wouldn't have it any other way.

It's also not necessary, desirable, or sustainable, which is why it isn't around anymore. Besides, freedom is always contextual. Gays didn't possess freedom in a 19th century context.

Saying "you wouldn't have it any other way" doesn't matter until you've experienced what it means to be judged for your birth rather than your achievements, to be held back in life -- to die a nobody because of it, full of unrealized potential and dreams -- and to not be able to resist without inciting the murder of yourself or your loved ones and bringing violence down upon your entire community. Arguments for "freedom" don't matter much in face of the level of hate and violence that can create.
 
Last edited:
yes we know that FDR raped the tenth amendment. However, Alito et al have been slowly rolling some of that crap back

Such as?

I love it when the big government types pull out "well that means you're in favor of defunding the military", when, if they knew 1/10th of what they think they know, they'd use a different example.

I did — police and fire. And I assume you want to eliminate the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Food and Drug Administration, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the National Transportation Safety Board, the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, etc, etc, etc.

I loved it how he try to target my beloved Corps.

It's ours, not yers.

Because a free society is not always the safest. Welcome to Freedom. It can be a double edge sword and I wouldn't have it any other way.

Enjoy those dangerous drugs, that tainted food, that epidemic disease, that unsafe vehicle, that meltdown at the local nuclear reactor, that local toxic waste dump, that commute into a city choked with air pollution, that airplane that crashes with you or a loved one aboard or else into yer house, etc. etc, etc.

You enjoy and would not want to live without all the benefits that "big government" provides. But yer enough of a hypocrite to pretend that you would wave them off because it would increase yer "freedom."
 
Last edited:
Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88–352, 78 Stat. 241, enacted July 2, 1964)

An act to enforce the constitutional right to vote, to confer jurisdiction upon the district courts of the United States of America to provide injunctive relief against discrimination in public accommodations, to authorize the Attorney General to institute suits to protect constitutional rights in public facilities and public education, to extend the Commission on Civil Rights, to prevent discrimination in federally assisted programs, to establish a Commission on Equal Employment Opportunity, and for other purposes.

based on the FDR expansion of the Commerce Clause which most of us who support the concept of proper constitutional interpretation find to be illegitimate
 
Such as?



I did — police and fire. And I assume you want to eliminate the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Food and Drug Administration, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the National Transportation Safety Board, the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, etc, etc, etc.



It's ours, not yers.



Enjoy those dangerous drugs, that tainted food, that epidemic disease, that unsafe vehicle, that meltdown at the local nuclear reactor, that local toxic waste dump, that commute into a city chocked with air pollution, that airplane that crashes with you or a loved one aboard or else into yer house, etc. etc, etc.

You enjoy and would not want to live without all the benefits that "big government" provides. But yer enough of a hypocrite to pretend that you would wave them off because it would increase yer "freedom."


Alito and Scalia's dissent in ACA. His comments about the early Lopez decision as well
 
based on the FDR expansion of the Commerce Clause which most of us who support the concept of proper constitutional interpretation find to be illegitimate

I tried hard to find a legitimate argument against what I said and I could not.

Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964)


The U.S. Supreme Court held that Congress acted well within its jurisdiction of the Commerce Clause in passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, thereby upholding the act's Title II in question. While it might have been possible for Congress to pursue other methods for abolishing racial discrimination, the way in which Congress did so, according to the Court, was perfectly valid. It found no merit in the arguments pursuant to the Thirteenth Amendment, finding it difficult to conceive that such an amendment might be applicable in restraining civil rights legislation. Having observed that 75% of the Heart of Atlanta Motel's clientele came from out-of-state, and that it was strategically located near Interstates 75 and 85 as well as two major Georgia highways, the Court found that the business clearly affected interstate commerce. Accordingly, it upheld the permanent injunction issued by the district court and required the Heart of Atlanta Motel to receive business from clientele of all races.
 
Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964)


The U.S. Supreme Court held that Congress acted well within its jurisdiction of the Commerce Clause in passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, thereby upholding the act's Title II in question. While it might have been possible for Congress to pursue other methods for abolishing racial discrimination, the way in which Congress did so, according to the Court, was perfectly valid. It found no merit in the arguments pursuant to the Thirteenth Amendment, finding it difficult to conceive that such an amendment might be applicable in restraining civil rights legislation. Having observed that 75% of the Heart of Atlanta Motel's clientele came from out-of-state, and that it was strategically located near Interstates 75 and 85 as well as two major Georgia highways, the Court found that the business clearly affected interstate commerce. Accordingly, it upheld the permanent injunction issued by the district court and required the Heart of Atlanta Motel to receive business from clientele of all races.

you seem to miss the fact that all of those decisions come from the tainted precedent created by FDRs lapdog justices from 1934-44
 
Such as?



I did — police and fire. And I assume you want to eliminate the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Food and Drug Administration, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the National Transportation Safety Board, the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, etc, etc, etc.



It's ours, not yers.



Enjoy those dangerous drugs, that tainted food, that epidemic disease, that unsafe vehicle, that meltdown at the local nuclear reactor, that local toxic waste dump, that commute into a city chocked with air pollution, that airplane that crashes with you or a loved one aboard or else into yer house, etc. etc, etc.

You enjoy and would not want to live without all the benefits that "big government" provides. But yer enough of a hypocrite to pretend that you would wave them off because it would increase yer "freedom."

If people want to do drugs the government can't stop (which is why the war on drugs is a big bust). I love how you think that government is the reason non of those things have happened. Their should be a level regulations on business. I think you are confusing less government with no government.
 
you seem to miss the fact that all of those decisions come from the tainted precedent created by FDRs lapdog justices from 1934-44
Clark was Truman, Goldberg was Kennedy.

Your conservative courts have not struck down public accommodation rulings. Your "illegitimate" argument goes nowhere, as per usual....Yalie.
 
Alito and Scalia's dissent in ACA. His comments about the early Lopez decision as well

Yeah, dissents. I don't see any "slowly rolling some of that crap back," even at a turtle's pace.

based on the FDR expansion of the Commerce Clause which most of us who support the concept of proper constitutional interpretation find to be illegitimate

You could just as well argue that "most of us who support the concept of proper constitutional interpretation find Marbury v. Madison to be illegitimate."

you seem to miss the fact that all of those decisions come from the tainted precedent created by FDRs lapdog justices from 1934-44

And they've been upheld, over and over and over again.
 
Clark was Truman, Goldberg was Kennedy.

Your conservative courts have not struck down public accommodation rulings. Your "illegitimate" argument goes nowhere, as per usual....Yalie.

for years I have noted that lots of "conservative" justices do what the FDR pet monkeys did not do

respect precedent. If you actually had a background in legal scholarship, you probably would be aware of what is commonly known as "the leftward ratchet of jurisprudence"

leftwing judges ratchet case law leftward. Subsequent 'conservative' judges respect that as precedent and cement it into the jurisdictional fabric. Then along come some more left-wingers and they crank things leftward

one of the reasons why Bork scared liberals was he noted that bad precedent should be stricken even if there was years of reliance upon it

sadly "faint hearted originalists" argue that unconstitutional stuff that has been around awhile has to remain because the upheaval caused by uprooting all the FDR nonsense would be too traumatic.
 
Yeah, dissents. I don't see any "slowly rolling some of that crap back," even at a turtle's pace.



You could just as well argue that "most of us who support the concept of proper constitutional interpretation find Marbury v. Madison to be illegitimate."



And they've been upheld, over and over and over again.

true, but that does not make them an honest interpretation of the words of the USC or the intent of the founders

many liberals don't really care about such things. short term gratification is more than sufficient to them
 
If people want to do drugs the government can't stop (which is why the war on drugs is a big bust).

Any sensible reading of my post makes it obvious I was talking about the regulation of legal drugs. What are you smoking?

>>I love how you think that government is the reason non of those things have happened. Their should be a level regulations on business. I think you are confusing less government with no government.

I'd say I know what yer doing, as I've already indicated. You want public safety, but you don't want to admit that government plays an indispensable role in securing it. My guess is you also don't want to pay for it.
 
Back
Top Bottom