NYT's Discovers Insidious TEA Party belief: Rule of Law

NYT's Discovers Insidious TEA Party belief: Rule of Law (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

FirmhandKY -> NYT's Discovers Insidious TEA Party belief: Rule of Law (10/7/2010 9:16:38 PM)
Movement of the Moment Looks to Long-Ago Texts By KATE ZERNIKE Published: October 1, 2010 Extract: Representative Paul D. Ryan, Republican of Wisconsin, alluded to “The Road to Serfdom” in introducing his economic “Roadmap for America’s Future,” which many other Republicans have embraced. Ron Johnson, who entered politics through a Tea Party meeting and is now the Republican nominee for Senate in Wisconsin, asserted that the $20 billion escrow fund that the Obama administration forced BP to set up to pay damages from the Gulf of Mexico oil spill circumvented “the rule of law,” Hayek’s term for the unwritten code that prohibits the government from interfering with the pursuit of “personal ends and desires.” Incredible. What other dastardly bits of ancient, despicable beliefs will the TEA partiers drag out of the dustbin of history? Firm

joether -> RE: NYT's Discovers Insidious TEA Party belief: Rule of Law (10/8/2010 12:05:09 AM)
Yes, the goverment, shouldn't force a foreign own company, who, thanks to their 'wisdom' (the compay, not the goverment), create a huge enviromental disaster, of which, we may never know the true damage. Its nice to know that Republicans are on the side of companies that wish to screw up America, rather then improve the country.... If your bitching about $20 Billion, then please produce the map that shows, down the the square milimeter, of the 'massive stockpiles' of 'WMDs' we never found in Iraq. How much did that war cost the U.S., again?

Kirata -> RE: NYT's Discovers Insidious TEA Party belief: Rule of Law (10/8/2010 12:38:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY the $20 billion escrow fund that the Obama administration forced BP to set up to pay damages from the Gulf of Mexico oil spill circumvented “the rule of law,” Hayek’s term for the unwritten code that prohibits the government from interfering with the pursuit of “personal ends and desires.” I have to agree that Hayek is worth reading, for anyone who hasn't. But the operative word there is "personal". Corporations aren't "persons" in any sense that someone with half a brain would accept (legal definitions to the contrary notwithstanding). K.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: NYT's Discovers Insidious TEA Party belief: Rule of Law (10/8/2010 12:56:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether Yes, the goverment, shouldn't force a foreign own company, who, thanks to their 'wisdom' (the compay, not the goverment), create a huge enviromental disaster, of which, we may never know the true damage. Its nice to know that Republicans are on the side of companies that wish to screw up America, rather then improve the country.... If your bitching about $20 Billion, then please produce the map that shows, down the the square milimeter, of the 'massive stockpiles' of 'WMDs' we never found in Iraq. How much did that war cost the U.S., again? Another one under the misapprehension that the $20 billion was anything more than showboating. It didnt make BP liable for a single penny more than it already was. And theyve deposited $3 billion of it....less than 1/3 of what theyve made in direct payments.

Real0ne -> RE: NYT's Discovers Insidious TEA Party belief: Rule of Law (10/8/2010 3:50:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY Movement of the Moment Looks to Long-Ago Texts By KATE ZERNIKE Published: October 1, 2010 Extract: Representative Paul D. Ryan, Republican of Wisconsin, alluded to “The Road to Serfdom” in introducing his economic “Roadmap for America’s Future,” which many other Republicans have embraced. Ron Johnson, who entered politics through a Tea Party meeting and is now the Republican nominee for Senate in Wisconsin, asserted that the $20 billion escrow fund that the Obama administration forced BP to set up to pay damages from the Gulf of Mexico oil spill circumvented “the rule of law,” Hayek’s term for the unwritten code that prohibits the government from interfering with the pursuit of “personal ends and desires.” Incredible. What other dastardly bits of ancient, despicable beliefs will the TEA partiers drag out of the dustbin of history? Firm quote: They have convinced their readers that economists, the Founding Fathers, and indeed, God, are on their side when they accuse President Obama and the Democrats of being “socialists.” And they have established a counternarrative to what Tea Party supporters denounce as the “progressive” interpretation of economics and history in mainstream texts. All told, the canon argues for a vision of the country where government’s role is to protect private property — against taxes as much as against thieves. Where religion plays a bigger role in public life. Where any public safety net is unconstitutional. And where the way back to prosperity is for markets to be left free from regulation. In Maine, Tea Party activists jammed the state Republican convention last spring to reject the party platform, replacing it with one that urged “a return to the principles of Austrian economics,” as espoused by Hayek, and the belief that “freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion.” The new platform also embraced the idea that “it is immoral to steal the property earned by one individual and give it to another who has no claim or right to its benefits” — a line ripped from Bastiat’s jeremiad against taxation and welfare. We can start talking about attorneys how about my fav gonzales, one of yer boys who is 3 sips beyond complete insanity if we want to do comparisons. what do you have a problem with in what I quoted firm? granted this guy is fucked up in his view on rule of law as it applies to corporations but what about the rest? You do realize this government is on the edge of anarchy in its present state of law do you not? quote: meaning if you put on a firemen hat then you are a fireman "operating" in the person of the same in service to the gubmint and later you put on the judges hat you "operating" in the person of the same in service to the gubmint as a trustee via the SACRED oath taken to the people to uphold said trust. who needs religion right? next; trust law is the highest form of law, evolved out of religion and an oath evolved out of the same how do the atheists plan on holding gubmint officials to the duties without the God factor?

Owner59 -> RE: NYT's Discovers Insidious TEA Party belief: Rule of Law (10/8/2010 4:39:56 AM)
I don`t know.....republicans shouldn`t even be using the phrase "rule of law".

Moonhead -> RE: NYT's Discovers Insidious TEA Party belief: Rule of Law (10/8/2010 5:24:16 AM)
While people are complaining about BP not paying enough, perhaps somebody could remind us how much Union Carbide paid the Indian government back in '84?

rulemylife -> RE: NYT's Discovers Insidious TEA Party belief: Rule of Law (10/8/2010 6:01:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Another one under the misapprehension that the $20 billion was anything more than showboating. It didnt make BP liable for a single penny more than it already was. BP was liable for the actual damages and clean-up costs. It had limited liability for secondary economic effects to the people and businesses that had losses because of the spill. BP's liability was capped at $75 million by the Oil Pollution Act, which would not even begin to cover it. The agreement guaranteed BP would pay and avoided a long Congressional battle over raising the cap retroactively. I'm trying to figure out why pro-business conservatives are so upset by this, because it is compensating those businesses that suffered, and continue to suffer, financial losses as the result of the spill. quote: And theyve deposited $3 billion of it....less than 1/3 of what theyve made in direct payments. No kidding? You think that might be because the agreement stipulated that the escrow account would be funded over four years?

pahunkboy -> RE: NYT's Discovers Insidious TEA Party belief: Rule of Law (10/8/2010 7:21:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead While people are complaining about BP not paying enough, perhaps somebody could remind us how much Union Carbide paid the Indian government back in '84? LMAO! Good one.

mnottertail -> RE: NYT's Discovers Insidious TEA Party belief: Rule of Law (10/8/2010 7:46:34 AM)
Well, in the not to distant future we can look forward to the unwritten rule of dancing in chicken guts and casting cattle bones for the tebaggers to to divine our destinies.

FirmhandKY -> RE: NYT's Discovers Insidious TEA Party belief: Rule of Law (10/8/2010 1:13:37 PM)
FR: The topic of conversation isn't about (necessarily) the BP "payment" of $20 billion. It is about a NYT reporter not understanding that the "rule of law" is not some ancient, drug up, old fashioned concept, but the very basis of the US system of governance. The US government's apparent coercion of the BP payment is an example of its failure to follow the rule of law. Firm

mnottertail -> RE: NYT's Discovers Insidious TEA Party belief: Rule of Law (10/8/2010 1:16:28 PM)
seems to me that it stipulated that this was an unwritten gentlemans agreement, and if we all are and act as gentlemen, do the right thing of our own accord for the sake of our fellow man, country, whatever..............which we are not and do not.........

FirmhandKY -> RE: NYT's Discovers Insidious TEA Party belief: Rule of Law (10/8/2010 1:29:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne We can start talking about attorneys how about my fav gonzales, one of yer boys who is 3 sips beyond complete insanity if we want to do comparisons. what do you have a problem with in what I quoted firm? granted this guy is fucked up in his view on rule of law as it applies to corporations but what about the rest? You do realize this government is on the edge of anarchy in its present state of law do you not? next; trust law is the highest form of law, evolved out of religion and an oath evolved out of the same how do the atheists plan on holding gubmint officials to the duties without the God factor? Real, I'm not sure I understand all of your points, but I don't necessarily "have a problem" with the primary emphasis that you have on some of the issues. I just don't always understand your point, or think you take the point too far. I also think that this government is closer to the edge of anarchy than many believe, as well. A final point is that "the rule of law" isn't a "corporation only" issue. The rule of law is something that is suppose to apply to individuals, corporations, organizations, and governments, each and every one. Firm

rulemylife -> RE: NYT's Discovers Insidious TEA Party belief: Rule of Law (10/9/2010 8:20:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY FR: The topic of conversation isn't about (necessarily) the BP "payment" of $20 billion. It is about a NYT reporter not understanding that the "rule of law" is not some ancient, drug up, old fashioned concept, but the very basis of the US system of governance. The US government's apparent coercion of the BP payment is an example of its failure to follow the rule of law. Firm There is no all-encompassing "rule of law" despite what philosophical fantasies teabaggers may want to invent. The law is whatever the society determines it to be. And there was absolutely no violation of any law here.

mnottertail -> RE: NYT's Discovers Insidious TEA Party belief: Rule of Law (10/9/2010 8:32:56 AM)
Specious argument at the outset as I indicated. Teabagggers dancing in chicken guts. Hayek decided to create a term for something as 'rule of law'. He could have termed it the 'gentlemans agreement'. Now, some fucking idiots make the retarded assertion that somehow there is a celestial law, when in fact, governments consistently throughout history fuck in commerce in considerable fashion. There is no free market anywhere on this planet, there was no free market anywhere on this planet, there will be no free market anywhere on this planet. Hayek even going so far as to say that "probably nothing has done so much harm to the liberal cause as the wooden insistence of some liberals on certain rules of thumb, above all of the principle of laissez-faire capitalism". Now, there is a fucking puzzle---who knew the nutsuckers were such flaming liberals? Thank god for such arch-conservatives as Mr. Obama who, when confronted with people who shit in the ocean tells them to wipe their ass and clean up the mess.

FirmhandKY -> RE: NYT's Discovers Insidious TEA Party belief: Rule of Law (10/9/2010 8:35:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY FR: The topic of conversation isn't about (necessarily) the BP "payment" of $20 billion. It is about a NYT reporter not understanding that the "rule of law" is not some ancient, drug up, old fashioned concept, but the very basis of the US system of governance. The US government's apparent coercion of the BP payment is an example of its failure to follow the rule of law. Firm There is no all-encompassing "rule of law" despite what philosophical fantasies teabaggers may want to invent. The law is whatever the society determines it to be. And there was absolutely no violation of any law here. Assuming that political pressure was used to "encourage" BP to make such a fund, then the basic concept of "the rule of law", not "the rule of men" was indeed violated, even if no written law was violated. Pressure can mean many things, but in this instance, if the judgment of one man caused BP to commit funds outside of a legal requirement, against their desire, then that was the imposition of a man's will over the "will" of law, and a clear violation of one of the most common concepts of "the rule of law". Now, if BP themselves decided, for public relations or moral reasons to do the same thing, then that would have been a free expression and act of contrition/public relations/morality. Do we know how the decision actually occurred? No. Therefore, unless or until evidence comes out that it was a "forced" decision, no one can truly say that they know it was a violation of the concept of "rule of law". The circumstances, however, are suspicious, and it is not in the interests of BP to admit the facts of the case, so I doubt we will every know. However, the main topic was the lack of understanding of the NYT in understanding what "the rule of law" is, and now (in my mind) has become about the fact that it seems that not many on the left side of the political equation understand what it is, either. Firm

Real0ne -> RE: NYT's Discovers Insidious TEA Party belief: Rule of Law (10/9/2010 8:35:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY FR: The topic of conversation isn't about (necessarily) the BP "payment" of $20 billion. It is about a NYT reporter not understanding that the "rule of law" is not some ancient, drug up, old fashioned concept, but the very basis of the US system of governance. The US government's apparent coercion of the BP payment is an example of its failure to follow the rule of law. Firm which one of the over 60,000,000 rules law might that be man? what is due process and the "rule of law"

FirmhandKY -> RE: NYT's Discovers Insidious TEA Party belief: Rule of Law (10/9/2010 8:37:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Specious argument at the outset as I indicated. Teabagggers dancing in chicken guts. Hayek decided to create a term for something as 'rule of law'. He could have termed it the 'gentlemans agreement'. Now, some fucking idiots make the retarded assertion that somehow there is a celestial law, when in fact, governments consistently throughout history fuck in commerce in considerable fashion. There is no free market anywhere on this planet, there was no free market anywhere on this planet, there will be no free market anywhere on this planet. Hayek even going so far as to say that "probably nothing has done so much harm to the liberal cause as the wooden insistence of some liberals on certain rules of thumb, above all of the principle of laissez-faire capitalism". Now, there is a fucking puzzle---who knew the nutsuckers were such flaming liberals? Thank god for such arch-conservatives as Mr. Obama who, when confronted with people who shit in the ocean tells them to wipe their ass and clean up the mess. As I said, it seems that not many of our more liberal friends have a clue as to what "the rule of law" is. Nor its history. Sad times indeed, and a portent for even rougher times in our future. Firm

Real0ne -> RE: NYT's Discovers Insidious TEA Party belief: Rule of Law (10/9/2010 8:39:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Specious argument at the outset as I indicated. Teabagggers dancing in chicken guts. Hayek decided to create a term for something as 'rule of law'. He could have termed it the 'gentlemans agreement'. Now, some fucking idiots make the retarded assertion that somehow there is a celestial law, when in fact, governments consistently throughout history fuck in commerce in considerable fashion. There is no free market anywhere on this planet, there was no free market anywhere on this planet, there will be no free market anywhere on this planet. Hayek even going so far as to say that "probably nothing has done so much harm to the liberal cause as the wooden insistence of some liberals on certain rules of thumb, above all of the principle of laissez-faire capitalism". Now, there is a fucking puzzle---who knew the nutsuckers were such flaming liberals? Thank god for such arch-conservatives as Mr. Obama who, when confronted with people who shit in the ocean tells them to wipe their ass and clean up the mess. yup thats the problem. lots of people get movements started and have no clue wtf they are talking about. in as much as free commerce is concerned we finally run across something we agree on. it is the grand delusion.

mnottertail -> RE: NYT's Discovers Insidious TEA Party belief: Rule of Law (10/9/2010 8:47:38 AM)
rule of law? nobody is above the law is about how that sifts out. I believe it was fundamentally destroyed with Ws signing statements. I assume that's what you meant by not knowing history, or the noblesse oblige and lese magiste we should have in this country regarding the looting of our treasury, orchestrating an illegal invasion of a soveriegn nation without provocation, slow undoing of our rights, and our engaging in torture and so many other things in this country. And now, just now, a few nutsuckers have come to consiousness? A dichotomy can be identified between two principal conceptions of the rule of law: a formalist or "thin" and a substantive or "thick" definition of the rule of law. Formalist definitions of the rule of law do not make a judgment about the "justness" of law itself, (that would be the take of these nutsuckers) but define specific procedural attributes that a legal framework must have in order to be in compliance with the rule of law. Substantive conceptions of the rule of law go beyond this and include certain substantive rights that are said to be based on, or derived from, the rule of law (that would be those of us who are of reason).

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.882813E-02