Joe 6-pack's Questions for Liberals

Self ^ | don't remember | self

[Joe 6-pack]

MHG,

Gimme a hand and utilize your most excellent bump list!

[JoeSixPack1]

There can be ONLY one....

Roman Candles at 3 paces..!!
Screaming "OUCH, THAT'S HOT" is not an option!!

[Drew68]

bttt

[Joe 6-pack]

This must be the "Gathering." I shined my sword just this morning (wife's back in Korea ya' know.)

[FReethesheeples]

BUMP

[FReethesheeples]

BUMP

[JoeSixPack1]

I shined my sword just this morning

No comment...hehehehe

BTTT

[Captainpaintball]

Bump! Bookmark! And a 21 paintball gun salute!

[Joe 6-pack]

"You should research the actual definitions of liberalism and conservatism instead of trying to define them for yourself."

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.

[glock rocks]

Wouldn't the artificially protracted preservation of a species destined for extinction result in an ecological catastrophe?

clubbing salmon comes to mind. another great article. thanks for the bump.

[Texas_Jarhead]

Just a few comments on your reply:

"3. "Thou shalt not kill."

I think you mean Thou Shalt not murder.

"8. Every human being has the means to refuse. Gandhi showed us that you can overthrow the most powerful government on Earth by simply refusing to give them power over you. Boris Yeltsin and the people of Moscow showed that they had the means to refuse when they faced down the attempted coup in 1991 without a single weapon on their side."

This is only true to the degree that the 'governing body' feels restrained, for whatever reason. Perhaps law, morality, or fear of repurcussions can pressure a government to deal with dissenters in such a manner as the examples you cite. However, when those governing fail to yield to such pressures catastophe is inevtiable. No such pressures succeeded in stopping the evil of Stalin, Hitler, Pol-Pot, or any number of other 20th century governments.

"I'm not sure -- but it wouldn't exist if the Supreme Court said it wasn't constitutional."

The SCOTUS has forgotten it's role in our 'checks and balances' scheme. When it is complicit in the unConstitutional activites of the legislature then our Nation is in grave danger.

[SwankyC]

I got my window washed yesterday...But I had to make my wife get out and do it

[Joe 6-pack]

"I got my window washed yesterday...But I had to make my wife get out and do it."

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.

[dpa5923]

Gandhi showed us that you can overthrow the most powerful government on Earth by simply refusing to give them power over you.

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!

[VRW Conspirator]

#9. The constitution does not specifically call for the Dept. of Education. Or for that matter a Dept. of Veterans Affairs, or Agriculture, or Commerce. It also does not specifically ban them either.

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.

Here is an excellent reference article

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?

[VRW Conspirator]

FYI, Joe, your definition of liberal is way, way off. Not all liberals believe in evolution, abortion, atheism, homosexuality, pedophilia, big government, and so on. I'm happen to believe in evolution and I am also a devout Christian, for example. You should research the actual definitions of liberalism and conservatism instead of trying to define them for yourself.

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.

[humblegunner]

"Gandhi showed us that you can overthrow the most powerful government on Earth by simply refusing to give them power over you"
No, he did not. He tried to, but all he did was show
how to be hungry and get walked on.
"And smile all the while"

[jammer]

Joe, joe, joe. Jerky-off isn't spewing libertarianism. I love your questions, but those are more libertarian than his "answers".

[xm177e2]

#5. In theory the government could set the minimum wage at 100 thousand an hour. But then the fear that conservatives have about raising the minimum wage- loss of jobs- would actually come true. That fear, however, does not result when you raise the minimum wage a few dollars over one or two years. Raising the minimum wage too much would not be good for anyone- but raising it a little would help the poor to some degree.

The minimum wage does destroy jobs, even when it's set at that level.