NOTE: I am actually an Australian, not an American.
Great, then how about you bugger off and go harp about your own damn Constitution?
2- If I believed in freedom, why would I post what I have on the thread?
Lulz.
2- Judges should at least TRY to get it right- it is obvious the Founding Fathers did not intend a "right to privacy"
And yea verily were the Ten Commandments of the United States Constitution issued forth from Mount Sinai, perpetual and inviolable, never prone to modification.
3- Can you give me a more specific case?
Gee, I don't know:
- Privatizing social security?
- Universal health care?
- Immigration reform?
- Offshore oil drilling?
- Iraq War funding?
- Iraq War withdrawal?
- Economic bailout of failing banks?
- Alternative energy plans?
4- The Farewell Adress is, if anything, on my side. (Though to be fair, I hadn't)
It's interesting how you claim something of whose content you are only vaguely aware supports you. Hey, John Von Neumann agrees with me! So does Einstein! What have you got to say about that? Citing references? Pft. Would you like some more ipse dixit?
5- There is a principle of not doing evil to achieve good. Breaking the law is an evil act under almost all circumstances.
Shooting Stalin in 1924 would be a
crime but I think most people are willing to acknowledge that in some instances, the ends
do justify the means. Pragmatism! Another wonderful invention courtesy of America.
6- If not for the sack of Rome, the butterfly effect would prevent modernity. That doesn't mean I'd endorse their behavior.
I'm so glad you'd be shaking your fist and making poorly bulleted arguments from an alternate dimension. At least you'd be displaying
consistent tunnel-vision. Ooh, ad hominem!
Jefferson should have asked Congress for permission to enact the Louisana Purchase- if he had hurried, then he could have avoided the problems from not diong it.
I'm sure his overriding concern was the precedent he was setting, yeah.
7- It is irrational to be overly nationalistic. The good of the peoples of the world is more important then US power.
Right, and of course it doesn't tend to be that, given the West ostensibly represents these values, and the West is both dominated and lead by the United States, that what tends to be good for the United States tends to be good for the West, and what is good for the West is good for humanity. There are of course innumerable exceptions but the basic pattern holds, unless you would now like to argue that Soviet domination or Nazi domination or British domination or any of the other contestants on World Domination Season 9 were better choices.
You know, since you just got done saying you don't believe in freedom, you're free (irony!) to do that now. We won't think any less of you than we already do (ad hominem!). And no, that's not a Godwin (preemptive strike!), I just mentioned Nazis, I didn't compare them to anybody.
8- If the President were not allowed to do things, Congressmen would feel more free to start doing them.
So you're the expert on human behavior and primate dominance mechanics now too, eh? That's quite a leap for someone who has Aspergers. Oh, look, some ad hominem again.
The political parties would still exist, but given that one of the parties would have a majority getting one would not be impossible.
Oh right, so protecting the good of the people is awesome unless you have a majority, in which case you should feel free to stomp all over their rights to pass legislation that shafts them permanently. Hooray for mob rule! Go read some Plato.
That's a straw man argument, and you know it.
Yes, I do, and here's some ad hominem for you: the will of the people says you're nuts so far. If their desire is you stop talking, will you?
