Steve T

...Okay. The US Constitution's Amendment 1 says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ...." Granting the established view that anything prohibited of Congress and not explicitly granted to States is prohibited to be done by States, there is nothing here that precludes prayer in classrooms, in my view. Establishment of religion means that the government recognizes only one religion. Allowing Christian prayer in (public) schools does not, in my opinion, violate this clause, provided that non-Christian prayer is not prohibited. ...Nope, sorry, it's yours -- you wrote (emphasis mine): That looks like an ad-hominem attack on Representative Paul's supporters to me! ...Well, I'll leave to others whether their own giving to charitable causes is "shirk[ing] the[ir] responsibility of looking after others" and take care of my own, thank you, and not sanction the enforcing of a possibly overly high level of giving with threat of fine or imprisonment (for not paying taxes, which is what would be required to change the amount). ...Because I do not believe that I am so wise that I can determine the appropriate level of giving for others. And I do not believe there's a politician or a government employee wise enough to do it, either! ...How would I save money if others did not give an appropriate level of charity? Are you accusing me of wanting to reduce or eliminate federal welfare programs because I could then give less than I should? And would you even know whether I were giving less than, more than, or the right amount? ...No one with any intelligence proposed that extending the Bush tax cuts would fix all of our economic problems, overnight or otherwise, the expectation/ hope is that it would not make things worse than they would be if taxes reverted to the higher levels pre-cut.

...No, that isn't what I wrote! I wrote that I was neither convinced by your argument nor do I know enough to say that what you wrote is incorrect, I simply prefer to believe that Representative Paul is sincere in what he says and will continue to believe that until I see something that convinces me otherwise.

...This is a rather dim view of Yanks. I've never heard of a serious proposal at a State level that endorses capital punishment for gays. As a non-Christian who has attended public school classes where there was Christian prayer, I don't see how that stomps on my rights or the rights of any non-Christian. And I fail to see why a law at the federal level that precludes (or federal judicial banning of a law) enforcing the death penalty is inherently superior to a State law that does result in the death penalty for abortion, an act that a very large number of people sincerely (and, in my view, in some way defensibly, although I disagree with them) believe to be murder.

...Aren't ad-hominem attacks discouraged in this forum? ...That the US Constitution, as interpreted by the judicial branch, is flexible enough to justify many activities doesn't seem to me to justify a claim that therefore Representative Paul's use of the Constitution to support his arguments is disallowed. The disagreement is over how far the Constitution should be stretched. Some of us prefer minimal stretching, others would allow much greater stretching. I don't consider those that disagree with my view to be in any way evil (except where it would increase their power while harming others, but I don't automatically assume that of them).

..."Nobody wants that" but "shallow tea partiers...?" So not only are tea partiers "shallow people" but they're also "[n]obod[ies]" because they want that? ...And they are necessary because...? I don't see that they are necessary at all, except for those employed by them whose talents wouldn't merit in the private sector the salaries and benefits they are given in government jobs. ...You left out the part about the myth that charity, family and friends will take up the slack! <grin> And how, exactly, does the Homeland Security Department disproportionately "benefit" poor Blacks and Hispanics?

...So show us where what Representative Paul says is different from what the US Constitution says. ...That's a strawman, IMHO. I agree with Representative Paul because I believe there are better ways to raise the welfare of people who are currently or prospectively "beneficiaries" of medicare and/ or social security. Oh, but wait, surely I'm only just saying that but am really just greedy! ...And I humbly disagree. Not only would charity, friends and family be able to fully replace federal welfare programs in my opinion but be more effective and result in less corruption. But that's just me throwing out my own personal opinion, just as you have yours, the difference being that you present yours as absolute, undeniable fact, based on honest and laudable nature (which I do not doubt), as opposed to mine, which must be hateful and greedy because it disagrees with yours).

...Neither this nor any of your latest posts do anything at all to convince me that Representative Paul is not sincere in his stated positions nor that he is racist, hatefilled, selfish, exclusionist, hateful or greedy. Anyone can sling about such accusations, it is quite something else to find and present real evidence! That's not to say that I'm convinced that he is not what you say he is but I prefer to assume that people believe what they say they believe until there is some persuasive evidence that they do not. What you have evidenced is that you disagree with his stated positions and that is why you are posting these arguments.

...That argument seems one that could be used to replace any and all private sector action by government. Others of us have the view that (1) the more government does, the more power it accrues and therefore the more corrupt it gets and (2) government rarely does anything as well as it can be done by the private sector.

...You gloss over the considerable advantages of the US system, such as readily available, high-quality health care for those that are well connected to the system (most of us). Of course there are serious disadvantages but, for many of us, they are outweighed by our estimation of the advantages.

...A position with which I think Representative Paul would fully agree. This "safety net" includes family, friends, private charities and philanthropists. ...Why does that have to be done by government? If there's a market for such oversight, as there surely must be because it's so important, it should happen without government. I hope you're not going to reply that non-government oversight can be captured by the very interests that are the subjects of the oversight -- a true statement, but the very definition of government (at least here in the US)! <grin>

...No impediments to a global free market is good because it allows people to trade when it is to their advantage. Believe it or not, there are situations where both parties to a trade benefit! This allows everyone to potentially add to their wealth -- yes, everyone deserves to have the opportunity to do it (but no one deserves to have wealth just given to them, even if they're "poor"). ...Sorry, I don't see what CPCFTW's theories (or Professor Friedman's) have to do with how many Chinese live below the poverty line. It is quite conceivable (and I do believe) that the fact that many Chinese are wealthier now than they would have been otherwise is because of the opportunities available to them to improve their lot with the liberaliz(s)ation of the Chinese economy and many could be wealthier still if their economy was liberaliz(s)ed still further, say to the extent Canada's is. ...If that is the case (and I don't doubt it, I just haven't looked at the evidence), then I would think it because either of intervention by the governments of Vietnam and Bangladesh to advantage its businesses (such as tariffs or subsidies or other trade barriers), in which case the situation won't last, or because their economies are becoming even more liberaliz(s)ed than China's and/ or because Vietnamese and Bangladeshi worker productivity is going up relative to that of the Chinese. ...As is that of, for example, the US vs India or China, as productivity and economic liberaliz(s)ation increases in the latter relative to the former.

...*Chuckle* Yeah, whoulda guessed that Harper and the Conservatives were pro-business, anti-labour and anti-consumer!??!?

...jacee, it seems to me that you did not read CPCFTW's full note! He ascribed the ill intent to the "...left wing 'humanitarian'" but suggested that the "right ring [sic] extremist baby-eating predator" would make the "virtuous," rat-like choice. <grin> Personally, I don't think either choice is intrinsically "good" or "bad," simply that people are likely to, and hopefully will, act in their own interest, which may result in sharing and may not. Why "hopefully?" Because if they don't, then they must be guessing what others' interest is, something one can't possibly know as well as one knows one's own. Fewer unintended consequences and the chaotic conditions likely to result are thus reduced.

Can you explain what you mean by a "public structure" by distinguishing it from structures that are not "public structures?" Here in the US, we do not have such a distinguishing concept, as far as I know, although I imagine most Yanks would comprehend a distinction between structures built and/ or operated by government or quasi-government entities vs those built and/ or operated by other entities, or between structures that allow anyone to use vs those intended to be used by only a certain, relatively small, group of people whose commonality is defined by some criterion different from citizens of/ visitors to a political entity. However, this latter distinction would understand "public structure" in a manner obverse from the way you seem to be using it.