Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Joe 6-pack's Questions for Liberals
Self ^ | don't remember | self

Posted on 09/29/2001 7:44:31 AM PDT by Joe 6-pack

Our ranks have been joined by many as of late, due no doubt, to recent events. As we carry our battle forward, here are a few arrows for your quivers:

"Joe 6-pack's Questions for Liberals:"

1. If, conceding the liberal argument, homosexuality is a genetic predisposition, and a test becomes available to let expectant mothers know if their, "fetus," is predisposed to homosexuality, should that mother be allowed to abort the "fetus," on that basis? If she would abort a "homosexual fetus," does that constitute a "hate crime?" Does preventing her from doing so impose on a woman's right to choose?

2. If we were not meant to eat animals, why are they made out of meat?

3. Suppose you and one other person were shipwrecked on a desert island, not under the jurisdictional law of any state and/ or country. Is it morally right for that person to kill you, or you to kill that person to stretch the food supply? If not, what makes it morally wrong?

4. If sexual activity of any sort is "ok," provided it is between consenting adults, does this include incest between children over 18 and their parents? If not, why? Why not... 17? 16? 15? 14?

5. If the government can arbitrarily set the minimum wage at $5.35 an hour, why not set it at $200.00 an hour? Wouldn't this improve the lot of the poor and lower working class? To what degree should the employer be able to determine the value of labor?

6. If you over-paid a shop owner $20.00 for a new carpet cleaner, would you not expect a refund or credit? Would you consider it theft if the business kept the overpayment without refunding or crediting you? Does not, an anticipated multi-billion dollar surplus indicate an overpayment on the part of the American taxpayer?

7. If your 23-year old daughter had an internship with a major corporation, and had spent her summer on her knees, under the desk of the married CEO, would you demand his resignation, or support his retention because he had been a "good," CEO? What if the CEO lied outright about the incident in a sexual harassment lawsuit filed by your daughter?

8. Is it truly and logically possible to be governed by our consent without ultimately being given the resort of arms? How is it possible that a human can honestly and legitimately consent without owning the means to refuse?

9. What paragraph(s) of the Constitution outline the responsibilities of the Department of Education?

10. If we, as a nation and political system have no moral superiority over nations and governments, why do we spend public monies on maintaining memorials to those that have died in order to preserve and spread our way of life? Should we no longer fund these projects?

11. If reparations for past wrongs can be demanded by the descendants of the victims from the descendants of the perpetrators, should native Americans be named as defendants in law suits against the tobacco industry? If, as many Afro-centrist scholars contend, Ancient Egyptian Civilization was the product of black africans, are not the descendants of Israelite slaves who built the pyramids owed reparations?

12. If one maintains that Darwinian evolutionary theory should be taught as fact, and at the exclusion of all other theories in public schools, one must subscribe to the notion of "survival of the fittest." If one believes that, "survival of the fittest," is a natural, evolutionary process, does the Endangered Species Act set a dangerous precedent in man's interference with nature? Wouldn't the artificially protracted preservation of a species destined for extinction result in an ecological catastrophe?

13. If you knew for a fact that a person was HIV positive, would you allow your teen-ager to have sexual intercourse with that person if they promised to use a condom they got from the school nurse? Would you have intercourse with someone you knew was HIV+, as long as you used a condom?


TOPICS: Miscellaneous; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-89 next last
To: Joe 6-pack
bump
41 posted on 09/29/2001 2:10:45 PM PDT by PA Engineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #42 Removed by Moderator

To: jerky
The Constitution doesn't ban things it authorizes them. It does not authorize a Department of Education, hence the Department of Education is UnConstitutional.
43 posted on 09/29/2001 3:53:26 PM PDT by ewchil
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Joe 6-pack
1. If, conceding the liberal argument, homosexuality is a genetic predisposition, and a test becomes available to let expectant mothers know if their, "fetus," is predisposed to homosexuality, should that mother be allowed to abort the "fetus," on that basis? If she would abort a "homosexual fetus," does that constitute a "hate crime?" Does preventing her from doing so impose on a woman's right to choose?

A Leftist would side-step the issue by banning tests that would determine the "gay predisposition" of a fetus, as being a "hate crime".

44 posted on 09/29/2001 4:04:51 PM PDT by SauronOfMordor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Northman
5. The government can't "arbitrarily" set the mininum wage at any level; there has to be popular support for the proposed legislation, and the legislation has to stand up to challenges in the court system. I believe the marketplace is the best mechanism to control the value of labor, however. If a company won't pay a living wage to their employees, I think the employees should abandon the company in droves and leave it without a workforce. I also think consumers should refuse to buy the products made by that company.

There is a direct relationship between a company's labor costs and the prices they must charge for their products to stay in business. So it happens every day that consumers get to choose between, for example "Brand A" which is listed as "made in USA by union labor" and equally-good-but-much-cheaper "Brand B" which is made in Indonesia by $10/day peasants

Most people look for price and quality, and don't care about the labor force which made it

The facts of life are that employers go for the cheapest labor, and labor tries to get jobs with the highest-paying employers.

If an area's labor force is cheap-but-competant, lots of employers will locate themselves there. Once close-to-full-employment is reached, labor will start job-hopping to the highest-paying employers, and wages will get bid up. But if you artificially set wages high to begin with, employers will have to incentive to relocate there, and unemployement will stay high there

45 posted on 09/29/2001 4:16:22 PM PDT by SauronOfMordor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: jerky
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

I didn't see "education" delegated to the US anywhere.

46 posted on 09/29/2001 4:22:08 PM PDT by copycat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Northman
8. Every human being has the means to refuse. Gandhi showed us that you can overthrow the most powerful government on Earth by simply refusing to give them power over you. Boris Yeltsin and the people of Moscow showed that they had the means to refuse when they faced down the attempted coup in 1991 without a single weapon on their side. The revolutions across Eastern Europe in 1989 showed that the people can destroy the most totalitarian governments simply by gathering and protesting without firing a single shot. A gun cannot secure freedom - that can only be secured when the people want it.

1) Ghandi won over the British because the British public back home would not have approved of harsh repressive measures on non-violent protestors. Nazi Germany would not have cared

2) Yeltzin and the Eastern European revolutions succeeded because of a general discontent with the status quo, which included the members of the armed forces. The armed forces would not have tolerated their own relatives being shot at.

3) The China Tienamin Square revolt initially succeeeded when the local military forces refused to fire upon their own countrymen. It was crushed when troops from far away were brought in, who felt no kinship with the locals

47 posted on 09/29/2001 4:22:44 PM PDT by SauronOfMordor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: ewchil
It also does not authorize welfare payments to terrorist. I am having a real hard time with the fact that a terrorist or anyone can come to this country and get all sorts of perks. Gov loans and grants for anything,medical and all their living expenses paid. They can get into college easier than the kids born here and get a good gov job easier too. All we get to do is pay for it.
48 posted on 09/29/2001 4:34:17 PM PDT by dalebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

Comment #49 Removed by Moderator

To: Joe 6-pack
"Most women I know consider engine oil an optional accessory, and generally treat their men's dip-sticks far too casually."

True, true, true...can't have him going to one of those inferior lube-and-oil joints that claim to "care" about the machinery.

-Lee (who regularly changes her husband's oil and polishes his sword)

50 posted on 09/29/2001 7:40:39 PM PDT by LeeMcCoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Joe 6-pack
Careful. All that common sense is going to give the libs brain cramps.
51 posted on 09/29/2001 8:05:57 PM PDT by alnick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: alnick
Sh!t happens...
52 posted on 09/29/2001 8:08:23 PM PDT by Joe 6-pack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Joe 6-pack
You really should expand this list big time. It's a brilliant "start".
53 posted on 09/29/2001 8:14:20 PM PDT by Registered
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Registered
Thanks,

I originally posted this some time ago, but could not find it in the archives...

...I still LOL at the way some people view it as a test and try to rationalize answers to all the questions. These are the same people that showed up for their SATs with a #3 pencil...

54 posted on 09/29/2001 8:20:01 PM PDT by Joe 6-pack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: jerky
Once you start going below 16, the ability to make a consensual decision becomes more difficult. A 12 year old who "agrees" to have sex is not able to make a rational, fully formed decision and therefore it is not consensual. Because it is not consensual, it is no longer "ok."

I'm not trying to be smart, but why does the age of consent differ then depending on the age of both people?? For instance, in Texas the age of consent is 17, but if you are within 3 years (I believe) the lowest age of consent is 14... That is, two 14 year olds, or a 17yo and 14yo could have sex without any legal problems, but a 18yo and 14yo having sex would mean that the 18yo could be prosecuted.

I'm not saying that a 18-14 relationship is "right".. I'm just asking your opinion on the consent issue... Why isn't it a set age for everyone???

55 posted on 09/29/2001 8:32:09 PM PDT by TexRef
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: groanup
Proud NRA member's BUMP!
56 posted on 09/29/2001 8:38:27 PM PDT by The Black Knight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

Comment #57 Removed by Moderator

To: jerky
The reason its not a set and uniform age everywhere is because of federalism

No -- I understand *that* issue...

What I'm saying is that why is legal for a 16 year old to have sex with a 14 year old (in Texas, for example), but it is not legal for an 18 year old to have sex with that same 14 year old??

Either they can consent or they can't IMHO...

58 posted on 09/30/2001 9:02:05 AM PDT by TexRef
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: TexRef
Bump!!
59 posted on 09/30/2001 1:42:14 PM PDT by Joe 6-pack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: jerky
Please tell me where the Constitution bans the Dept. of Education? Or any other such Department? I will save you the trouble- it does NOT ban them.

Oh perverse generation!

Try reading the constitution first. Second, I gave you a link to an article that illustrates the subversion of the constitution quite well. For those of you in Palm Beach County, the 9th and 10th admendments to the constitution restrict the governance of the federal government. The powers of the federal government were understood to be "enumerated".

IOW, the Fed had only those limited powers so described by the constitution. The socialists came along and decided that the "general welfare" clause was not what the framers really meant. The socialists redefined the general welfare clause (they found penumbras) to mean anything they wanted it to mean.

But, hey, don't let facts get in the way of your agenda.

60 posted on 10/01/2001 10:23:53 AM PDT by VRW Conspirator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-89 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson