<Removed>

[tzor]

God you're funny sometimes.

I can't help it. It's one part of my heritage I can't suppress.

[ooge]

Bob Dole Talking about the current republican party.

[Woodruff]

So the House SUB-COMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION AND CIVIL JUSTICE is pushing a law that is unConstitutional, rather than attempting to actually amend the Constitution. Exactly how ironic can these guys get?

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/04/all-male-house-subcommittee-votes-to-restrict-abortion-nationwide/

[tzor]

So the House SUB-COMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION AND CIVIL JUSTICE is pushing a law that is unConstitutional, rather than attempting to actually amend the Constitution. Exactly how ironic can these guys get?

It may be counter to current Supreme Court judicial jurisprudence and stare decisis but most scholars generally agree that Roe v Wade was crappy constitutional law in the first place. Moreover, if you can establish a solid pain argument, then the constitutional prohibition against "cruel and unusual" punishment would trump the right to "privacy." I mean if you allow these procedures there is no reason not to outlaw drawing and quartering. I mean "what difference does it make?"

[Woodruff]

So the House SUB-COMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION AND CIVIL JUSTICE is pushing a law that is unConstitutional, rather than attempting to actually amend the Constitution. Exactly how ironic can these guys get?

It may be counter to current Supreme Court judicial jurisprudence and stare decisis but most scholars generally agree that Roe v Wade was crappy constitutional law in the first place. Moreover, if you can establish a solid pain argument, then the constitutional prohibition against "cruel and unusual" punishment would trump the right to "privacy." I mean if you allow these procedures there is no reason not to outlaw drawing and quartering. I mean "what difference does it make?"

Do these things somehow mean we shouldn't follow Constitutional procedure? You know, since it's coming from the sub-committee on the Constitution and all?

[Woodruff]

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/06/09/the-man-who-could-be-virginias-next-lt-governor-thinks-evolution-is-a-lie-and-sin-leads-to-birth-defects/

[BigBallinStalin]

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/06/09/the-man-who-could-be-virginias-next-lt-governor-thinks-evolution-is-a-lie-and-sin-leads-to-birth-defects/

Perhaps universalcairo is his spiritual leader?

[ooge]

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/06/09/the-man-who-could-be-virginias-next-lt-governor-thinks-evolution-is-a-lie-and-sin-leads-to-birth-defects/

I was wondering when someone was going to post something about this guy.

[ooge]

http://www.charismanews.com/opinion/398 ... gay-agenda response of this video by a republican strategist.The strategist argues this is child abuse.

[Woodruff]

http://www.charismanews.com/opinion/39807-parent-accused-of-abusing-child-to-promote-gay-agenda

response of this video by a republican strategist.The strategist argues this is child abuse.

1. It's retarded to call this child abuse.

2. That was a very strange and, in my opinion useless, thing for the mom to do, frankly.

[ooge]

http://www.charismanews.com/opinion/39807-parent-accused-of-abusing-child-to-promote-gay-agenda

response of this video by a republican strategist.The strategist argues this is child abuse.

1. It's retarded to call this child abuse.

2. That was a very strange and, in my opinion useless, thing for the mom to do, frankly.

your right about the second point,but you know how moms can be.Is it a good thing everyone has access to a camera now?..

[tzor]

Do these things somehow mean we shouldn't follow Constitutional procedure? You know, since it's coming from the sub-committee on the Constitution and all?

Ironically, there is no "constitutional procedure." It's not like there is a section in the Constitution that dictates procedure. Even the supreme court pulled it's authority to declare laws "unconstitutional" out of thin air based on the facts that the constitution is the supreme law of the land and that it had specific procedures to actually amend it. But a "Committee" on the Constitution is just a part of the legislative branch and unless they propose a constitutional amendment, they cannot change the constitution in any manner whatsoever.

[Woodruff]

Do these things somehow mean we shouldn't follow Constitutional procedure? You know, since it's coming from the sub-committee on the Constitution and all?

Ironically, there is no "constitutional procedure." It's not like there is a section in the Constitution that dictates procedure. Even the supreme court pulled it's authority to declare laws "unconstitutional" out of thin air based on the facts that the constitution is the supreme law of the land and that it had specific procedures to actually amend it. But a "Committee" on the Constitution is just a part of the legislative branch and unless they propose a constitutional amendment, they cannot change the constitution in any manner whatsoever.

"Constitutional procedure" is the method of proposing and accepting/rejecting a Constitutional amendment. Which is precisely my point.

[Juan_Bottom]

http://samuel-warde.com/2013/06/gop-con ... ate-video/

If this doesn't make you laugh then you are dumb.

[ooge]

http://samuel-warde.com/2013/06/gop-congressman-i-oppose-abortion-because-male-fetuses-masturbate-video/

If this doesn't make you laugh then you are dumb.

The GOP should refrain from commented on anything involving science.

[Woodruff]

http://samuel-warde.com/2013/06/gop-congressman-i-oppose-abortion-because-male-fetuses-masturbate-video/

If this doesn't make you laugh then you are dumb.

Texas...it's like a whole other country.

[ooge]

http://www.inquisitr.com/682163/texas-g ... ican-bill/ speaking of Texas.

[Woodruff]

http://www.inquisitr.com/682163/texas-gov-rick-perry-vetoes-buy-american-bill/ speaking of Texas.

I don't see his veto as a particularly awful one, but it does confuse me. I don't really understand why he, as the Governor of the state, wouldn't want this to be the law. It just seems strange to me that he vetoed this particular bill.

[ooge]

http://www.inquisitr.com/682163/texas-gov-rick-perry-vetoes-buy-american-bill/ speaking of Texas.

I don't see his veto as a particularly awful one, but it does confuse me. I don't really understand why he, as the Governor of the state, wouldn't want this to be the law. It just seems strange to me that he vetoed this particular bill.

at one point in the house of representatives Democrats proposed legislation that all Americans flags have to be made in America.The republicans voted against it.The reason republicans vote against things like this is because of their"free market principles"..blah..blah..crap.I think that is why Rick perry vetoed this bill.So is it America first with them? or Ideology? or serving their corporate masters?

[patches70]

at one point in the house of representatives Democrats proposed legislation that all Americans flags have to be made in America.

That's stupid and wasteful legislation.

The reason republicans vote against things like this is because of their"free market principles"..blah..blah..crap.

I'm not convinced you understand nearly enough about markets to even call it crap.


Lemme ask you something, ooge, let's look at a little scenario. You live in a neighborhood. You and your neighbors all agree that you'll only buy products and services provided by someone in the neighborhood. You all want to keep all your money within the neighborhood and take in money from other neighborhoods without sending any of your money outside the neighborhood.

So, you are required to buy stuff within your neighborhood only, but you can sell your products and services outside your neighborhood as well as to your neighbors. Are you with me so far?

Ok, since you all need a wide variety of goods and services, and not every needed good and service is actually provided by someone in your neighborhood, that opens up a lot of opportunity for others to get into new businesses, right? For instance, people in your neighborhood need a plumber, but no plumber lives in your neighborhood. This encourages someone to learn how to be a plumber. And so on and so on. For goods and services you can't get yet from your neighborhood, that increases a demand for someone to provide those services.
Are you with me so far?

Ok, you have a major plumbing problem in your house. You call up your neighbor who has just learned the craft of plumbing. He comes over and fixes the problem, charging you a fee accordingly. The next day the plumbing screws up again. Your neighbor, though a plumber, isn't a very good plumber.
Why should you be forced to only use him when in the next neighborhood over is a very good plumber who will actually do a good job?

In addition, your neighbor plumber, he isn't very good so no one outside your neighborhood wants to hire him. So for jobs within the neighborhood he has to charge more money because he has much fewer customers. He doesn't have to worry about competing, everyone in the neighborhood has to come to him. Of course, if someone else in the neighborhood becomes a plumber, the first plumber will go out of business for sure. Unless the new plumber sucks worse, then it'll be him who goes out of business.

What you are seeing in the above examples is a form of mercantilism. It's the desire to control all trade outside the border of your neighborhood (country/county/state). Mercantilism demands a trade surplus, that is more money is coming into the neighborhood than leaving.
Of course, mercantilism leads to all sorts of problems that you should be able to see. Trade is not a zero sum game. In fact, trade, honest trade, is a benefit to both parties. When you go around restricting trade then you deprive yourself of the best possible products at the best possible prices and also deny opportunity to others. You seek to harm others for your benefit.

That's mercantilism.
You may ask "why is honest trade a benefit to both (or all) parties involved in the trade?" Suppose you brew your own beer. A very good brew at that! It's tasty, high quality and priced well. Your neighbor on the other hand, is a skilled doctor, and a very good doctor at that! You get sick one day, you offer to trade the doctor some of your beer for some of his treatment of your illness. In that trade, if agreed upon, is good for both parties. You get well and the doctor gets nice and drunk on his day off. Win win for everyone.

When you deny free trade to others you deny opportunity for parties to get mutual benefit that helps everyone involved. It goes even further. The doctor doesn't even drink all of your beer. He goes and trades some of that beer for some fish from the fisherman. Again, both parties benefit. You, on the other hand, hate fish and would never have traded your beer for any amount of fish. By allowing free trade people benefit from your beer at no detriment to yourself. Because you traded your beer for something you wanted. That party then traded your beer for something he wanted.

And it goes on and on. Benefiting people, encouraging production, expanding markets that allow multiple vendors and participants.

Why would you ever think it's a good idea to deny such a system to anyone?

[ooge]

at one point in the house of representatives Democrats proposed legislation that all Americans flags have to be made in America.

That's stupid and wasteful legislation.

The reason republicans vote against things like this is because of their"free market principles"..blah..blah..crap.

I'm not convinced you understand nearly enough about markets to even call it crap.


Lemme ask you something, ooge, let's look at a little scenario. You live in a neighborhood. You and your neighbors all agree that you'll only buy products and services provided by someone in the neighborhood. You all want to keep all your money within the neighborhood and take in money from other neighborhoods without sending any of your money outside the neighborhood.

So, you are required to buy stuff within your neighborhood only, but you can sell your products and services outside your neighborhood as well as to your neighbors. Are you with me so far?

Ok, since you all need a wide variety of goods and services, and not every needed good and service is actually provided by someone in your neighborhood, that opens up a lot of opportunity for others to get into new businesses, right? For instance, people in your neighborhood need a plumber, but no plumber lives in your neighborhood. This encourages someone to learn how to be a plumber. And so on and so on. For goods and services you can't get yet from your neighborhood, that increases a demand for someone to provide those services.
Are you with me so far?

Ok, you have a major plumbing problem in your house. You call up your neighbor who has just learned the craft of plumbing. He comes over and fixes the problem, charging you a fee accordingly. The next day the plumbing screws up again. Your neighbor, though a plumber, isn't a very good plumber.
Why should you be forced to only use him when in the next neighborhood over is a very good plumber who will actually do a good job?

In addition, your neighbor plumber, he isn't very good so no one outside your neighborhood wants to hire him. So for jobs within the neighborhood he has to charge more money because he has much fewer customers. He doesn't have to worry about competing, everyone in the neighborhood has to come to him. Of course, if someone else in the neighborhood becomes a plumber, the first plumber will go out of business for sure. Unless the new plumber sucks worse, then it'll be him who goes out of business.

What you are seeing in the above examples is a form of mercantilism. It's the desire to control all trade outside the border of your neighborhood (country/county/state). Mercantilism demands a trade surplus, that is more money is coming into the neighborhood than leaving.
Of course, mercantilism leads to all sorts of problems that you should be able to see. Trade is not a zero sum game. In fact, trade, honest trade, is a benefit to both parties. When you go around restricting trade then you deprive yourself of the best possible products at the best possible prices and also deny opportunity to others. You seek to harm others for your benefit.

That's mercantilism.
You may ask "why is honest trade a benefit to both (or all) parties involved in the trade?" Suppose you brew your own beer. A very good brew at that! It's tasty, high quality and priced well. Your neighbor on the other hand, is a skilled doctor, and a very good doctor at that! You get sick one day, you offer to trade the doctor some of your beer for some of his treatment of your illness. In that trade, if agreed upon, is good for both parties. You get well and the doctor gets nice and drunk on his day off. Win win for everyone.

When you deny free trade to others you deny opportunity for parties to get mutual benefit that helps everyone involved. It goes even further. The doctor doesn't even drink all of your beer. He goes and trades some of that beer for some fish from the fisherman. Again, both parties benefit. You, on the other hand, hate fish and would never have traded your beer for any amount of fish. By allowing free trade people benefit from your beer at no detriment to yourself. Because you traded your beer for something you wanted. That party then traded your beer for something he wanted.

And it goes on and on. Benefiting people, encouraging production, expanding markets that allow multiple vendors and participants.

Why would you ever think it's a good idea to deny such a system to anyone?

have fun waving your made in China American flag,you also are assuming I think shutting of all free trade is a good idea I am not of course.Just as the Japanese protect rice production in their country I don't think it is to much to ask to incentives American made products.

[patches70]

I don't think it is to much to ask to incentives American made products.

American made products made only by Americans living in your particular state? Screw the other 49 states?

have fun waving your made in China American flag

I don't wave any flag. It's just a piece of clothe. If waving an American made flag is important to you then you can always just make sure you purchase an American made flag.


Hey, ooge, good luck getting American made products in the forefront of available products. Have you ever wondered why the US has a trade deficit?

It's called the triffin dilemma.

You see, the US dollar is the World's reserve currency. Since the dollar is the WRC that means that an ever greater flow of dollars must leave the US. This is done so through trade, and hence we have a trade deficit.

The world needs dollars since goods (especially oil which is traded only in dollars*) are traded in dollars. That is if German wants to trade beer for wine from France, the German's change the value of their beer into dollars, the French change the value of their wine into dollars and from there they can determine the best equitable trade deal. $10 of beer for $10 of wine or whatever.

Since dollars are needed for trade, countries need dollars. Where do they get those dollars? Do we just give them dollars? Hahah! No, not at all. They sell their goods here in the US. Since the demand for dollars is so great, the triffin dilemma explains why whatever country hold the currency that is the world's reserve currency, that country must run a trade deficit.

If we were selling more goods than we were buying from other countries, they'd have no dollars to buy those good.


So, you can do all the incentives you want, but so long as the dollar is the reserve currency, you can't negate the trade deficit.

Thus, there will always be more products floating around from all over the world than is made in the US. You should take a moment to look up "triffin dilemma" and then you'll understand a little bit better what you are dealing with in order to make the right decisions on how to get what you wish to accomplish (more products made in the US. Guess what? You can't just make a law saying this State/county/country can only use products made in this State/country/country because it can't be enforced and it's just stupid considering reality).

Monetary policy. It's all about the money, stupid!




*Except the Asian dollar exclusion zone. Iran, China, India, Russia, Japan and soon Australia, all have trade agreements that circumvent the dollar as the reserve currency and they trade goods and convert their own currencies directly with each other instead of converting to dollars first.

[john9blue]

i really don't know why you persist, patches... lol

[ooge]

i really don't know why you persist, patches... lol

troll

[john9blue]

i really don't know why you persist, patches... lol

troll

whoa, pleasant surprise! i thought you had me on ignore.