Skip to comments.Joe 6-pack's Questions for Liberals
Posted on 09/29/2001 7:44:31 AM PDT by Joe 6-pack
Our ranks have been joined by many as of late, due no doubt, to recent events. As we carry our battle forward, here are a few arrows for your quivers:
"Joe 6-pack's Questions for Liberals:"
1. If, conceding the liberal argument, homosexuality is a genetic predisposition, and a test becomes available to let expectant mothers know if their, "fetus," is predisposed to homosexuality, should that mother be allowed to abort the "fetus," on that basis? If she would abort a "homosexual fetus," does that constitute a "hate crime?" Does preventing her from doing so impose on a woman's right to choose?
2. If we were not meant to eat animals, why are they made out of meat?
3. Suppose you and one other person were shipwrecked on a desert island, not under the jurisdictional law of any state and/ or country. Is it morally right for that person to kill you, or you to kill that person to stretch the food supply? If not, what makes it morally wrong?
4. If sexual activity of any sort is "ok," provided it is between consenting adults, does this include incest between children over 18 and their parents? If not, why? Why not... 17? 16? 15? 14?
5. If the government can arbitrarily set the minimum wage at $5.35 an hour, why not set it at $200.00 an hour? Wouldn't this improve the lot of the poor and lower working class? To what degree should the employer be able to determine the value of labor?
6. If you over-paid a shop owner $20.00 for a new carpet cleaner, would you not expect a refund or credit? Would you consider it theft if the business kept the overpayment without refunding or crediting you? Does not, an anticipated multi-billion dollar surplus indicate an overpayment on the part of the American taxpayer?
7. If your 23-year old daughter had an internship with a major corporation, and had spent her summer on her knees, under the desk of the married CEO, would you demand his resignation, or support his retention because he had been a "good," CEO? What if the CEO lied outright about the incident in a sexual harassment lawsuit filed by your daughter?
8. Is it truly and logically possible to be governed by our consent without ultimately being given the resort of arms? How is it possible that a human can honestly and legitimately consent without owning the means to refuse?
9. What paragraph(s) of the Constitution outline the responsibilities of the Department of Education?
10. If we, as a nation and political system have no moral superiority over nations and governments, why do we spend public monies on maintaining memorials to those that have died in order to preserve and spread our way of life? Should we no longer fund these projects?
11. If reparations for past wrongs can be demanded by the descendants of the victims from the descendants of the perpetrators, should native Americans be named as defendants in law suits against the tobacco industry? If, as many Afro-centrist scholars contend, Ancient Egyptian Civilization was the product of black africans, are not the descendants of Israelite slaves who built the pyramids owed reparations?
12. If one maintains that Darwinian evolutionary theory should be taught as fact, and at the exclusion of all other theories in public schools, one must subscribe to the notion of "survival of the fittest." If one believes that, "survival of the fittest," is a natural, evolutionary process, does the Endangered Species Act set a dangerous precedent in man's interference with nature? Wouldn't the artificially protracted preservation of a species destined for extinction result in an ecological catastrophe?
13. If you knew for a fact that a person was HIV positive, would you allow your teen-ager to have sexual intercourse with that person if they promised to use a condom they got from the school nurse? Would you have intercourse with someone you knew was HIV+, as long as you used a condom?
This is further proof that the interior of a mind this complex needs redecorating..:-)
Understood...confronting a liberal with logic can be like trying to teach a fish to ride a bicycle. However, at a minimum, it usually gets them to shut up, and that, in and of itself, is a worthy objective.
#3. I would think its morally wrong to kill another in the situation you described. The reason is that I think it is wrong to kill another except in extreme circumstances- self defense, war time
Correct me if I'm wrong, but do I see a One Eyed Jack here?
Where, England? The people are subjects. Canada? Ditto. Are you answering these rhetorical questions to spark arguments, or did you not understand the gist of the post?
As to the minimum wage issue, my point is, whether the gov't raises the minimum wage a dollar or five hundred dollars, it is arbitrary and severely impact upon the rights of the employer/ entrepreneur to value labor in a free market. One can only pay an employee a percentage of what that employee's skills or labor bring in, lest the employer take a loss. Mandated minimums ultimately result in an employer going out of business due to cost/ benefit inequities. If you were my employee, and you were directly responsible for bringing in $6.00 per hour to my business, yet, I was spending $8.00 x hour for your management, insurance, administration, salary, benefits, etc., I'm actually losing money to keep you employed! I'd be out of business, and you'd be out of a job, and our clientele would be out of a service if your wage, the worth of your labor, were defined externally, outside of the market.
As to the concept of government by consent, you're way out there. Human history, indeed, 20th Century history, demonstrates a pattern wherein governments try to dominate individuals. Anyone who believes he is living freely, without the means to resist domination, is fooling himself.
Gimme a hand and utilize your most excellent bump list!
Roman Candles at 3 paces..!!
Screaming "OUCH, THAT'S HOT" is not an option!!
Thanks for telling others what they should do, and how they should define their world views...you're a liberal, and not in the truest sense of a Nat Hentoff, but rather in the modern mode of dicky gephardt.
clubbing salmon comes to mind. another great article. thanks for the bump.
I hope your oil level is o.k. Most women I know consider engine oil an optional accessory, and generally treat their men's dip-sticks far too casually.
Do you really believe this? If this had been Nazi Germany, a single round would have ended Gandhi's non-violent protest. A government that doesn't want to allow disent will not, unless the people make them and can stop violence against the disenters!
Au Contraire! The constitution banned all that noise. It was that way for about 150 years - until FDR showed up. The Supreme court under FDR threw out many goofy laws. FDR tried to subvert the constitution to do an end run around the contitionalists in the court. Then suddenly, the supreme court began to see things his way. They found all sorts of "penumbras" that did not exist before.
Up to that time, the General Welfare clause was a worthy statement in the constitution and was regarded with a bit of reverence. After FDR, it was regarded as the gateway to the ever expansion of governemnt. The socialists had won the title of definers of what is equal, just, constitutional, etc. without a shot fired!
The "rights" of the federal government were held to a finite measure up to FDR. After FDR, the federal government could have no bounds. That is were we are at now. Those idiots in Washington moan about not having enough money to spend, as if $2 trillion dollars is not enough.
I side with libertarians in the need for constitutional reform - that is, to view the federal government as it it was designed to be regarded. The reference then to "the Department of Education" is with this in mind. Your answer is truly a liberal answer. Why is it that most liberals are happy having there lives micro-managed from a small committee in Washington?
Perhaps Joe's definitions are way off for democrats but I do not think so far off for today's liberals. The leadership of the Dem party has been overrun by Leftists. The difference? -Primarily a conscience. The Leftists who hide behind the cloak of so-called liberalism are the nearest things to communists.
I was a registered Democrat a long time ago, as was Ronald Reagan, as was Charlton Heston, as was my father. The one thread we have in common is that the democratic party had left us. And, where did they go?
I cannot fathom why a devout Christian would vote for the same people who are dead set on keeping abortion legal. I cannot fathom why rights as defined as a gift from God are so maligned.
The minimum wage does destroy jobs, even when it's set at that level.
A Leftist would side-step the issue by banning tests that would determine the "gay predisposition" of a fetus, as being a "hate crime".
There is a direct relationship between a company's labor costs and the prices they must charge for their products to stay in business. So it happens every day that consumers get to choose between, for example "Brand A" which is listed as "made in USA by union labor" and equally-good-but-much-cheaper "Brand B" which is made in Indonesia by $10/day peasants
Most people look for price and quality, and don't care about the labor force which made it
The facts of life are that employers go for the cheapest labor, and labor tries to get jobs with the highest-paying employers.
If an area's labor force is cheap-but-competant, lots of employers will locate themselves there. Once close-to-full-employment is reached, labor will start job-hopping to the highest-paying employers, and wages will get bid up. But if you artificially set wages high to begin with, employers will have to incentive to relocate there, and unemployement will stay high there
I didn't see "education" delegated to the US anywhere.
1) Ghandi won over the British because the British public back home would not have approved of harsh repressive measures on non-violent protestors. Nazi Germany would not have cared
2) Yeltzin and the Eastern European revolutions succeeded because of a general discontent with the status quo, which included the members of the armed forces. The armed forces would not have tolerated their own relatives being shot at.
3) The China Tienamin Square revolt initially succeeeded when the local military forces refused to fire upon their own countrymen. It was crushed when troops from far away were brought in, who felt no kinship with the locals
True, true, true...can't have him going to one of those inferior lube-and-oil joints that claim to "care" about the machinery.
-Lee (who regularly changes her husband's oil and polishes his sword)