DiscussMormonism.com

Droopy wrote:

touché. I found these point salient:

1- In liberalism, "We the people" create government; it is by the people and of the people. In Mormon doctrine, it's God that institutes government.

I'm afraid then you haven't understood the meaning of the scriptural references provided, especially as the constitution is understood to be a divinely inspired document (which, by the way, doesn't itself establish government on those grounds. That is done in the Declaration.)

Hmm....According to Droopy, it is the declaration of independence, not the Constitution, that establishes the government on the basis of "We, the people."

Unites States Constitution, Preamble

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The Declaration of Independence does not establish a government at all. The Declaration of Independence does not have the force of law, despite the right-wing talking point to the contrary.

But do go on, Droopy. I believe that you are constantly talking about your masterful understanding of the Constitution........

Hmm....According to Droopy, it is the declaration of independence, not the Constitution, that establishes the government on the basis of "We, the people."

Sorry, that's the Gettysburg Address. Analytics said "we the people," but also mentioned "by the people and of the people" which is what caught my attention and which is a paraphrase of the GA. Yes, I was rattling off the post and misspoke. My mistake.

Now, no need to pretend you understand the constitution, Darth. You've made quite clear over time that you have your own version between your ears that follows its own inclinations.

And now, I won't be engaging you and your juvenile thread derailments any longer. You already destroyed one post, and I assume if I don't respond any more, and give you a cookie, you will eventually go away when your baiting is no longer responded to.

Droopy wrote:

Hmm....According to Droopy, it is the declaration of independence, not the Constitution, that establishes the government on the basis of "We, the people."

Sorry, that's the Gettysburg Address. Analytics said "we the people," but also mentioned "by the people and of the people" which is what caught my attention and which is a paraphrase of the GA. Yes, I was rattling off the post and misspoke. My mistake.

Now, no need to pretend you understand the constitution, Darth. You've made quite clear over time that you have your own version between your ears that follows its own inclinations.

And now, I won't be engaging you and your juvenile thread derailments any longer. You already destroyed one post, and I assume if I don't respond any more, and give you a cookie, you will eventually go away when your baiting is no longer responded to.

Interesting facts about Droopy:

---He doesn't believe that Article III of the Constitution, the role of the judiciary outlined in The Federalist, and the common law tradition the United States comes from mean that case law really is law. Somehow he thinks that the Constitution is a self-executing document.

---He does believe that the LDS Church can authoritatively interpret the myths that ancient Hebrews wrote about their tribal god. Somehow the Bible, and Joseph Smith's fanfic derived from it, is not self-executing.

Go figure, huh?

Droopy, since you don't want whatever the point of this thread is to be derailed, here you go:

http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/vie ... =1&t=12849

You've had over a year and a half to show everyone that you understand the Constitution better than I do. Let's see that verified.

Droopy wrote:

Hmm....According to Droopy, it is the declaration of independence, not the Constitution, that establishes the government on the basis of "We, the people."

Sorry, that's the Gettysburg Address. Analytics said "we the people," but also mentioned "by the people and of the people" which is what caught my attention and which is a paraphrase of the GA. Yes, I was rattling off the post and misspoke. My mistake.

Now, no need to pretend you understand the constitution, Darth. You've made quite clear over time that you have your own version between your ears that follows its own inclinations.

And now, I won't be engaging you and your juvenile thread derailments any longer. You already destroyed one post, and I assume if I don't respond any more, and give you a cookie, you will eventually go away when your baiting is no longer responded to.

Just the fact that you think the Declaration of Independence establishes the government, or anything else, is sufficient proof that you don't know what you're talking about. Getting the most famous words in the Constitution---the Preamble---wrong was a nice touch, though.

Just the fact that you think the Declaration of Independence establishes the government, or anything else, is sufficient proof that you don't know what you're talking about. Getting the most famous words in the Constitution---the Preamble---wrong was a nice touch, though.

I don't think the Declaration establishes anything. What I meant to say there was that the words "by the people, for the people etc.) were part of the Declaration. Call it a brain cramp. Oh well. That, of course, was the Gettysburg address.

I know perfectly well what the Declaration and constitution say, but sometimes I don't pay close enough attention to what I'm typing, and don't think through the constructions of my sentences thoroughly, in a message board environment, especially when typing furiously because I want to get a post up before I have to run out of the house to untangle the dog from the tree in the center of my front yard, or to answer the phone.

You know, perhaps instead of just assuming that someone you disagree with is stupid, or doesn't know what they're talking about (a bit of projection, perhaps?), you might ask for clarification of something that you should know perfectly well is likely not what that person meant to say.

But I don't think you have the personal or intellectual integrity to do that.

You wouldn't have left the church if you had, nor would you behave hear the way you do if you did.

Droopy wrote:

Just the fact that you think the Declaration of Independence establishes the government, or anything else, is sufficient proof that you don't know what you're talking about. Getting the most famous words in the Constitution---the Preamble---wrong was a nice touch, though.

I don't think the Declaration establishes anything. What I meant to say there was that the words "by the people, for the people etc.) were part of the Declaration. Call it a brain cramp. Oh well. That, of course, was the Gettysburg address.

Yeah, the Gettysburg Address is another of our more important sources for substantive law.

I know perfectly well what the Declaration and constitution say, but sometimes I don't pay close enough attention to what I'm typing, and don't think through the constructions of my sentences thoroughly, in a message board environment, especially when typing furiously because I want to get a post up before I have to run out of the house to untangle the dog from the tree in the center of my front yard, or to answer the phone.

You know, perhaps instead of just assuming that someone you disagree with is stupid, or doesn't know what they're talking about (a bit of projection, perhaps?), you might ask for clarification of something that you should know perfectly well is likely not what that person meant to say.

But I don't think you have the personal or intellectual integrity to do that.

Drawing a conclusion based on the things you say is not "projection." I have yet to find anywhere on any message board that would lead me to the conclusion that you know anything about constitutional law. Yet you never fail to say that I don't know anything about the Constitution, or that lawyers in general don't know anything about the Constitution. And apparently you think that court consists of applying the Socratic method to message board posts.

And I know you really like to think you are some purist because you believe in the Constitution itself---as if it is possible to apply the Constitution without interpreting it---but as far as judicial review creating case law that determines what the Constitution means, that ship sailed in 1803.

You wouldn't have left the church if you had, nor would you behave hear the way you do if you did.

Oh, of course! Intellectually honest people cannot help but maintain a belief in the faith-promoting narrative.

Where does D&C 132 authorize "ceremonial polyandrous sealings," again? I keep forgetting.

As long as we value greed and the interests of a ruling class over the spiritual and worldly needs of members, then there is only room for right-wing thought at this table. Let those do-gooders have their leftism and we can have our Thousand Year Quorum.

Choose the Far Right.

- Moksha, The Seven Thousand Six Hundred and Forty Two Year Leap, Penguin Books. Skousen City, Alberta 2012.

The biggest similarity between Droopy and Karl Marx is that they are both extraordinarily concerned with people freeloading off of the work of others. The difference is that Karl Marx thinks the freeloaders are the ones who live like gods but don’t actually work because they live off of the dividends their ownership of capital provides. In contrast, Droopy thinks the freeloaders are the folks who do manual labor for minimum wage and ask that healthcare coverage be included in their contract with society.

Interesting facts about Droopy:

---He doesn't believe that Article III of the Constitution, the role of the judiciary outlined in The Federalist, and the common law tradition the United States comes from mean that case law really is law. Somehow he thinks that the Constitution is a self-executing document.

Case law has become, unfortunately, in many cases a slow, creeping rewriting of the constitution through incremental precedent, and with the general present moral and intellectual state of the contemporary legal profession and judiciary, this has become the very point of much special interest litigation.

---He does believe that the LDS Church can authoritatively interpret the myths that ancient Hebrews wrote about their tribal god.

I know you really enjoy this vulgar, intellectually primitive Madalyn Murry 'O Hair-like baiting and mockery, but all it does is just make you look more like the terminal end of a horse than you did the post before.

I've never said that you don't understand constitutional law, at least as presently understood within many of our law schools. What I've said is that you have little understanding (or, more likely, have no intention of understanding) the constitution. You're entire past gay marriage schtick is evidence enough of that.

Two very different things, the constitution and constitutional law, depending upon one's approach to "constitutional law."

Analytics wrote:The biggest similarity between Droopy and Karl Marx is that they are both extraordinarily concerned with people freeloading off of the work of others. The difference is that Karl Marx thinks the freeloaders are the ones who live like gods but don’t actually work because they live off of the dividends their ownership of capital provides.

So then, Someone who has earned large sums of wealth through productive economic activity in which he created and built up a successful business, provided jobs and economic opportunity for others, and increased the net wealth of his community and nation, and who then takes a portion of his savings and invests it in further productive economic activity, job creation, and in providing his fellow citizens with things they want to trade some of their property for of their own free will, and who is directly at risk, if his own money has been used, and directly responsible to others, if he has borrowed and is managing the funds of others, is a "freeloader"?

The entire job creating class; the investors who take their own earned income, itself generated from serving there fellow human beings in a way that those human beings found useful and desirable, and reinvest it in the creation of jobs, opportunity, and wealth for others, as well as themselves, and who then, reinvest those profits in yet other profitable economic activities, are parasites.

Fascinating.

In contrast, Droopy thinks the freeloaders are the folks who do manual labor for minimum wage and ask that healthcare coverage be included in their contract with society.

Very few Americans work for the minimum wage (approximately 2.5% of all wage earners and 1.5% of the entire American workforce) and of those who do, The vast majority are not relying on those wages to subsist.

The average family income of the minimum wage worker is around $65,000 per year. Why, because the average minimum wage worker is between 16 and 24 years of age, and is living at home with parents or other working family members, or, above 25 years of age, is part of a family in which multiple members work. This is why Bureau of Labor Statistics data show that only 17% of minimum wage earners are living below the poverty line. Most of these people are actually living in middle class households, not sleeping in cardboard boxes at the railroad yard.

Well has Dr. Thomas Sowell et al termed Marxism a "crackpot" economic theory with so little intellectual rigor outside its own internal theoretical web, and so little connection to actually existing economic and social reality as to be an intellectual comic irrelevance, had it not become to popular in the minds of much of the western intelligentsia over the course of the 20th century.

It is these kinds of ideas - exactly these kinds of ideas - that, when left to run their course and follow their own inherent internal logic, end in things like Mao Tse Tung's views and policies on agricultural reform.

And about this alleged "contract with society" you claim exists. What is this contract, who agreed to it and on what terms, and how is this entity you call "society" to be defined?