Sunday, January 24, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
F U R L O N G C O L O N Y 1
A sporadic update of the important effects unfolding in Furlong Colony 1.
F U R L O N G C O L O N Y 1
A sporadic update of the important events unfolding in Furlong Colony 1.
The Furlactic Center
Snooky Wookumses:
Porter Types:
Life:
- Realpolitik (86)
- South Korea (71)
- Ministry of Silly Walks (28)
- Snooky Wookums (19)
- Raspberry Berets (18)
- Me Myself and Boris (17)
- Places I've Been (16)
- I'd Like to Buy an Argument (14)
- Bits and Pieces (11)
- Science (11)
- Sophistheads (10)
- Yes I Still Play Nintendo (8)
- Long Furs (7)
- I AM TECHNOLOGY (6)
- Live Free or Die (5)
- Munchkins Learning Engrish (5)
- Collectible Coins (4)
- Stupid Americans (4)
- Waterloo (4)
- Furlong Colony 1 Original (3)
- Me-Me (3)
- Movies are My Life (3)
- Photoshopped (3)
- Travel Stories (3)
- Gumi Bears (2)
- Happy Holidays (2)
- KimChi (2)
- Too Much Stuff (2)
- Boneheads (1)
- Cheezy Landmarks and Me (1)
- Our Walks (1)
- Photography (1)
- Porter Types (1)
- Realpolitiks (1)
- The Land of Shining Waters (1)
About Furlong Colony 1
1. My blog is a private website. Search engines like Google, Yahoo!, and MSN can not access this site, because I opted to keep Furlong Colony 1 private when I created it. It is only viewed by the people I send it to and the people they send it to.
2. Opinions expressed on this blog are merely opinions. Don't take them personal.
3. Any essays that appear on this website are third draft, and not intended to be of professional quality. If you find a mistake, please email me at cdfurlong@gmail.com so that I can correct it.
4. Any insults received on this website are merely Internet insults and should not be taken seriously. In the real world no one would use such language unless enraged. The Internet is a different world than the face-to-face world, and should be treated as such. :)
2. Opinions expressed on this blog are merely opinions. Don't take them personal.
3. Any essays that appear on this website are third draft, and not intended to be of professional quality. If you find a mistake, please email me at cdfurlong@gmail.com so that I can correct it.
4. Any insults received on this website are merely Internet insults and should not be taken seriously. In the real world no one would use such language unless enraged. The Internet is a different world than the face-to-face world, and should be treated as such. :)
5. Posts should be packed full of content. Therefore, if you post contentless, rhetorical posts, I will delete them.
Places I've Been
- Donghwasa Temple, Daegu, South Korea
- Gatbawi Temple, Daegu, South Korea
- Haeinsa Temple, Daegu, South Korea
- Mount Hallasan, Jeju Island, South Korea
- Vladivlostok, Russia
- Irkutsk, Siberia, Russia
- Trans-Siberian Railroad, Russia
- Moscow, Russia
- Peters, Saint Petersburg, Russia
- Brest, Belarus
- The Great Wall, Beijing, China
- Terespol, Poland
- East and West Berlin, Germany
- Beijing, China
- Terracotta Warriors, Xian, Shaanxi, China
- Xian, Shaanxi, China
- Chengdu, Sichuan, China
- Tiger Leaping Gorge, Lijiang City, Yunnan, China
- Old Town of Lijiang, Lijiang City, Yunnan, China
- Lijiang City, Yunnan, China
- Dali City, Yunnan, China
- Water Splashing Festival, Jinghong, Yunnan, China
- Jinghong, Xishuangbanna, Yunnan, China
- Kunming, Yunnan, China
- Nanning, Guangxi, China
- Guilin, Guangxi, China
- Guangzhou, Guangdong, China
- Hong Kong, China
- Darwin, Northern Territory, Australia
- Katherine, Northern Territory, Australia
- Mount Olga, Northern Territory, Australia
- King's Canyon, Northern Territory, Australia
- Uluru, Northern Territory, Australia
- Ti Tree, Northern Territory, Australia
- Todd River, Alice Springs, Northern Territory, Australia
- Alice Springs, Northern Territory, Australia
- Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
- Lismore, New South Wales, Australia
- Ipswich, Queensland, Australia
- Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Fraser Island, Queesland, Australia
- Rockhampton, Queensland, Australia
- Byron Bay, Queensland, Australia
- Emerald, Queensland, Australia
- Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
- Taree, New South Wales, Australia
- Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
Selling Korea:
$93.44 USD.
42 comments:
Good video.
Note that the "left" agreed with Zappa.
So did I, so where does that leave me?
That leaves you in a state of confusion about what constitutes "the left" and forces to reevaluate your ideological conclusions.
Actually it leaves me neither on right nor on the left; I'm simply an example of why the left/right paradigm is bullshit.
Nope. The Western Marxists were always for free speech, and distanced themselves from Stalin once they realized that he was little more than a dictators. In fact, there is absolutely nothing in the mainstream left-wing literature, in Marx or the anarchists, that would allow anyone to conclude that the left is against free speech. On the contrary, the left is 100% for free speech and instead it is the right-wing that is for censorship.
The left-right spectrum still works here, because it is only the religious right that wants to censor. Everything to the left of the religious right, including libertarianism, is pro-free speech.
Again, you have no idea what you are talking about. Your analysis of the left-right spectrum is wrong because of this fact. ;)
The problem lies in grouping libertarianism in the same wing as right-wing religious zealots at all.
You might want to also note that Zappa calls himself a conservative in this video.
They ARE in the same wing, but libertardianism is more left, because libertarianism used to be the left of the Christian theocracy, even though modern libertardianism shares many of the same assumptions and conclusions as modern conservativism.
Yes, Zappa calls himself a constitutional conservative, while, at the same time, railing against those who are moving the country to a "Christian theocracy".
Did you watch the video?
Ron Paul and Rand Paul have called themselves constitutionalist conservatives.
And as long as they follow the logic of the constitution they are. If they don't, like how they want to put government into a woman's reproductive choice, then they are just conservatives.
Does the constitution mention anything about the federal governments role in regard to abortion?
No.
Do either Paul's think the US government has a role in regard to policing abortion?
No.
There, they match up with with the constitution.
Even Peter Schiff, who is pro-choice, recognizes the federal government has no role in regard to abortion.
"Does the constitution mention anything about the federal governments role in regard to abortion?"
No, but it does mention the right to liberty, which assumes privacy and control of one's body. You see, Josh, this is sophistry that you are spinning in order to ignore the fact that you have become Rush Limbaugh.
"Do either Paul's think the US government has a role in regard to policing abortion?"
I'm pretty sure they are against its legality if that is what you mean.
"There, they match up with with the constitution."
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=ron_pauls_abortion_rhetoric
No, Ron Paul is a piece of shit conservative.
No, its not sophistry, its black and white text. The law is black and white.
Ron and Rand are both pro-life and would argue within their own states that their state government protect the life of the unborn. This is because all matters not addressed in Section 1 article 8 are left to the state governments.
Abortion is not addressed in Section 1 Article 8, therefore, their perspective that regulation over abortion to be left to the state governments is the constitutional conservative position, regardless of your position in regard to abortion (once again, Peter Schiff is pro-choice but understands the constitution).
"No, its not sophistry, its black and white text. The law is black and white."
Yup, and the black and white of "liberty" is that you can not have liberty if the government controls your private actions. It is therefore, sophistry.
"Ron and Rand are both pro-life and would argue within their own states that their state government protect the life of the unborn. This is because all matters not addressed in Section 1 article 8 are left to the state governments."
No, sorry, the states do not have the right to contradict the rights laid down in the bill of rights. Those rights are applicable to all states.
"Abortion is not addressed in Section 1 Article 8, therefore, their perspective that regulation over abortion to be left to the state governments is the constitutional conservative position, regardless of your position in regard to abortion (once again, Peter Schiff is pro-choice but understands the constitution)."
No, sorry, the principles of the constitution allow for privacy, liberty, and the rights of the individual on the federal level. The states do not have the right to contradict those principles on the state level. Instead, the states have the right to makes laws on any thing that does not contradict the core principles of the constitution. Privacy is one of these core principles.
Sorry, which amendment address abortion?
All of them.
Every single amendment is about the freedom of the individual vis-a-vis the state. If the state makes choice illegal, it has trampled upon a basic freedom, which goes against one of the basic principles of the Bill of Rights, the DoI, and the Constitution.
I am a constitutionalist vegetableatarian, conservatively speaking my liberal state of mind!
"Every single amendment is about the freedom of the individual vis-a-vis the state. If the state makes choice illegal, it has trampled upon a basic freedom, which goes against one of the basic principles of the Bill of Rights, the DoI, and the Constitution."
States makes choice illegal all of the time.
I liberally speak my conservative state of mind.
"States makes choice illegal all of the time."
The states do not have that right; however, that illegality can only be extinguished by the Supreme Court.
"I liberally speak my conservative state of mind."
The above sentence is non-contradictory, because the left-right spectrum is a contextual designation.
Actually, juries have nullified supreme court decisions in the past.
States do have the right to make choices of all sorts illegal.
"Actually, juries have nullified supreme court decisions in the past.
States do have the right to make choices of all sorts illegal."
Such as?
Speed Limits.
Gay Marriage
Yes, and speed limits is well within the state's right to regulate. Driving a car is not freedom of speech and if you crash into somebody you destroy their liberty, so speed limits are completely constitutional and something the states should regulate.
Banning gay marriage is unconstitutional. However, the Supreme Court would have to make a judgement to overturn it as a decision of the conservative Christian portion of the population.
Marriage has nothing to do with the constitution.
True, but the freedom to marry does.
How about the freedom to exchange untested raw milk for a good or service of value agreed upon by all parties involved? Is that freedom protected by the constitution? Or do the states have the right to regulate?
"How about the freedom to exchange untested raw milk for a good or service of value agreed upon by all parties involved? Is that freedom protected by the constitution? Or do the states have the right to regulate?"
Of course the states have the right. Selling raw milk might lead to death and hence the destruction of someone else's liberty. DUH.
Sorry, I thought this would be one of those freedoms the constitution protects but does not mention; I guess you get to choose those ones.
The DoI is based on the idea that everyone has liberty, and the constitution was written based on the Declaration. That which contradicts the protection of liberty is anti-constitutional.
k
I don't agree but anyway...
My choice to buy or sell untested raw milk would be anti-constitutional in your weird world.
It is not a weird world at all. Murder is the quintessential example. Murder deprives another person of their life, of their liberty. This is why it is against the law. Murder is, also, unconstitutional, BECAUSE it violates the liberty of another.
"Murder is the quintessential example. Murder deprives another person of their life, of their liberty. This is why it is against the law. Murder is, also, unconstitutional, BECAUSE it violates the liberty of another."
You really do not understand US law. Laws in regard to murder is legislated by the states. It has nothing to do with the US constitution. I challenge you to find the word "murder" in the US Constitution. This is one of the premises Paul uses to argue that the federal government should not legislate in regard to abortion, and why they argue the supreme court shouldn't have heard Roe vs Wade. The supreme court doesn't listen to murder cases because they have nothing to do with the constitution.
"You really do not understand US law."
I understand it much better than you. Both the DoI and the constitution are part of the United States Code and hence can be used to interpret a laws constitutionality. They are examples of what is called "an organic law".
"Laws in regard to murder is legislated by the states. It has nothing to do with the US constitution."
That's very nice boilerplate, but if one of the states were to legislate that murder should be legal, that state would be going against the constitution and the Supreme Court would obviously judge it unconstitutional. Why? Because murder violates a person's right to liberty.
"I challenge you to find the word "murder" in the US Constitution."
I don't need to. I don't judge the constitution on its absolute content. I judge the constitution based on the logical effects of its underlying principles.
"This is one of the premises Paul uses to argue that the federal government should not legislate in regard to abortion,"
I think Paul is a hypocritical Rush Limbaugh lackey. The right to choose is a right of each citizen protected by the DoI and Constitution.
Paul's premise is wrong, authoritarian tripe that should be denounced as such at every opportunity.
"and why they argue the supreme court shouldn't have heard Roe vs Wade. The supreme court doesn't listen to murder cases because they have nothing to do with the constitution."
Lol, you are a retard. Any case that has something to do with liberty is within the Supreme Courts' jurisdiction.
"That's very nice boilerplate, but if one of the states were to legislate that murder should be legal, that state would be going against the constitution and the Supreme Court would obviously judge it unconstitutional. Why? Because murder violates a person's right to liberty."
Some types of murder are legal, and it is left to the states to legislate.
When the founders wrote the constitution, it wasn't with the assumption it would be "interpreted". It is what it is, black and white. If you want to change it, you amend it. You're interpreting it in a way that makes sense to you ignoring reality. Canadian law, and most other western law is much different and leaves much to be interpreted by the courts. This was not the intent of the constitution.
"I don't need to. I don't judge the constitution on its absolute content. I judge the constitution based on the logical effects of its underlying principles."
That's because you're an idiot and do not understand US law.
"The right to choose is a right of each citizen protected by the DoI and Constitution."
Accept when that individual is making a choice you determine they can't make on their...like buying untested raw milk. Suddenly and individual is bright enough to end the life of an unborn child but not bright enough to determine if he should be drinking the white crap that comes directly out of a disgusting cow's udder.
"Paul's premise is wrong, authoritarian tripe that should be denounced as such at every opportunity. "
Yea, the guy that wants to let people live as they choose to is the authoritarian.
Anyway, we both know there are two schools of thought on the supreme court, 1. it is meant to interpret the constitution or 2. it is meant to apply the constitution. The perspective that its role is to interpret the constitution is one that did not arrive until the mid 20th century; I support the latter line of thought as that was the traditional role of the Supreme.
Anyway, any law that leaves room for interpretation is no law at all, which is why the checks and balances of the US government are failing; there is no law, only interpretations.
"Some types of murder are legal, and it is left to the states to legislate."
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/murder
A murder is an unlawful killing. Therefore, lawful killings are not murder.
Josh, you really need to know what you are talking about before you conclude.
"When the founders wrote the constitution, it wasn't with the assumption it would be "interpreted"."
That is totally wrong. Many of those founders who were wary of adding a bill of rights to the constitution, were wary BECAUSE they thought it would extinguish rights not written down in the bill of rights. Alexander Hamilton rightfully expressed these views.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights#Early_sentiments_favoring_expanding_the_Bill_of_Rights
Therefore, I think the interpretation movement was alive and well long before the constitution was implemented.
"It is what it is, black and white."
Nope.
"If you want to change it, you amend it. You're interpreting it in a way that makes sense to you ignoring reality."
Nope, the Supreme Court can not apply it without interpretation.
"Canadian law, and most other western law is much different and leaves much to be interpreted by the courts. This was not the intent of the constitution."
Lol, coming from someone who doesn't know the history of the constitution.
The interpretation movement came later, because as society got more complex, the implementation of the basic principles underlying the constitution became much more complex. You can not apply the constitution if you can't interpret it. It is a fact.
"That's because you're an idiot and do not understand US law."
Nah, that's you.
"Accept when that individual is making a choice you determine they can't make on their...like buying untested raw milk. Suddenly and individual is bright enough to end the life of an unborn child but not bright enough to determine if he should be drinking the white crap that comes directly out of a disgusting cow's udder. "
Yes, that is right, because the choice to abort is based on personal reasons, while the buying of milk may contain something that can't be seen, but may kill.
"Yea, the guy that wants to let people live as they choose to is the authoritarian.
"
Except for women and the victims of dangerous products.
"Anyway, we both know there are two schools of thought on the supreme court, 1. it is meant to interpret the constitution or 2. it is meant to apply the constitution. The perspective that its role is to interpret the constitution is one that did not arrive until the mid 20th century; I support the latter line of thought as that was the traditional role of the Supreme. "
No, sorry, you can't apply the constitution without interpreting it. Such an action is impossible.
"Anyway, any law that leaves room for interpretation is no law at all, which is why the checks and balances of the US government are failing; there is no law, only interpretations."
What checks and balances are failing? I don't see any. In fact, what I see is a fascist rightwing party making laws that directly oppose the principles of the constitution and a liberal supreme court that was slowly dismantling it. Based on your interpretation, it would be okay for the federal government or any state to enact patriot act like laws and it would be nice and constitutional BECAUSE there is no amendment barring such laws. HORRIBLE ANTI-FREEDOM FASCISM NONSENSE> Ron Paul is a moron.
"A murder is an unlawful killing. Therefore, lawful killings are not murder."
Hey, you're the one who wrote this:
"if one of the states were to legislate that murder should be legal"
You're going back to semantics and definitions to ignore the substance of the argument...you should avoid that.
"Alexander Hamilton rightfully expressed these views."
Alexander Hamilton was an idiot.
And the put the 9th amendment into the constitution to resolve Hamilton's and Madison's fears.
"Therefore, I think the interpretation movement was alive and well long before the constitution was implemented. "
Wrong. Interpretation was feared, not assumed. You're reaching.
"implementation of the basic principles underlying the constitution became much more complex."
Wrong. Just because you say its more complex, doesn't mean it is.
"You can not apply the constitution if you can't interpret it."
Interpreting assumes it means more than what it says. It's not a piece of artwork. It means what it says.
"Yes, that is right, because the choice to abort is based on personal reasons, while the buying of milk may contain something that can't be seen, but may kill."
Choosing which substances I ingest is a very personal decision. Don't make assumptions about me and what I find or don't find personal. (hint: I'm mocking your use of the word "personal" to support your abortion argument").
"victims of dangerous products."
If I choose to drink untested raw white crap from the udder of a disgusting cow and then I get sick from, I'm only a victim of my own stupidity. If you want the government to protect you from your stupid decisions, and you think they're best to do that, donate 30% of your paycheck to them, I'd rather keep my 30% and make my own decisions.
"What checks and balances are failing?"
Well, look around a little bit and you might discovered the US has been involved in at least 5 undeclared wars since WWII.
"Based on your interpretation, it would be okay for the federal government or any state to enact patriot act like laws and it would be nice and constitutional BECAUSE there is no amendment barring such laws."
The patriot act is glaringly unconstitutional... fourth amendment.
If the constitution doesn't properly provide protection for certain rights, amend it, like it used to be done before the constitution was used as toilet paper. Its hard to believe once upon a time the government felt a need to amend the constitution to out law alcohol; nowadays congress just legislates prohibition on drugs. If only the founders new they gave congress such powers...
Post a Comment