State Of The Union

[DuncanONeil]

Your knee jerk response was that, of course our oil gets sold overseas. The evil oil company wants to make as much money as possible. By implication that would mean all of it!
Now to try and lay off that because of transportation. Sorry but all they would have to do is to sell the oil FOB origin. Then the transportation does not matter.
Free trade has little to do with but to seriously refute would take more time than this site will allow for a response.

I don't see how exporting 12.5% means that I'm wrong about this. Most of the time the most profitable contract will be in the US because the transport costs are far lower. Also markets fluctuate wildly, so sometimes it will be profitable to sell abroad.

Nothing I said earlier says that the US would sell every drop of oil abroad, just that they are allowed to under free trade agreements, and thus will when they have the economic incentive to do so.

I'm frequently responding to arguments on this board of the form "As a taxpayer I believe X therefore the government should support X." yet when I point out that there are also taxpayers who believe the opposite of X you dismiss it as irrelevant. My argument is not that the government should support X or the opposite, its rather that if you want to argue the government has an obligation to support only services a particular taxpayer is willing to pay for then the government can't provide any services at all because for every service there exists a taxpayer who wouldn't want to pay for it. Some criminals pay taxes (they don't want to go down like Capone did), I'm sure they'd be happy if every level of government spent $0 on police. Similarly for arsonists and fire departments, etc..

What has this got to do with oil??

As for reading of various national documents, people can't even agree on what those are or what mandates they provide.

I thought this was a response to a discussion on oil? What documents are you talking about?

For instance, I don't see how any US document gives the federal government a mandate to occupy a foreign country after already having declared victory in the war for which those troops were present.

Care to be a little more specific? Or is this just intended as filler or just a snide remark?

If an American citizen has an entitlement to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, does the entitlement to life include medically necessary care? If so, since the government is responsible for providing said right, are they responsible for compensating the health care providers for it?

No one in the US is denied medically necessary care! And those that receive it are not funded by the Government

What does a right of freedom of speech even mean for Americans? You live in a country where the chief justice of the supreme court sent war protesters to jail for protesting a war with the oft quoted line "Freedom of speech does not give one the right to yell fire in a crowded theatre." yet freedom of speech supports KKK marches. You live in a country where leftist discussions lead to the McCarthy witch hunts and the shameful trial of Oppenheimer under the Eisenhower administration, yet freedom of speech supports neo-nazi demonstrations. It seems to me your governments and courts have a long history of acting in violation of the rights afforded to you by your fancy paper documents.

Based on this comment you would fit in quite well at the ACLU. First of all the Supreme Court sends no one to jail! And you provide, again, no specifics for analysis. Then there is the propensity to through up past history as if it was headlines in yesterdays daily paper!

[SadisticNature]

Your knee jerk response was that, of course our oil gets sold overseas. The evil oil company wants to make as much money as possible. By implication that would mean all of it!
Now to try and lay off that because of transportation. Sorry but all they would have to do is to sell the oil FOB origin. Then the transportation does not matter.
Free trade has little to do with but to seriously refute would take more time than this site will allow for a response.





What has this got to do with oil??



I thought this was a response to a discussion on oil? What documents are you talking about?



Care to be a little more specific? Or is this just intended as filler or just a snide remark?



No one in the US is denied medically necessary care! And those that receive it are not funded by the Government



Based on this comment you would fit in quite well at the ACLU. First of all the Supreme Court sends no one to jail! And you provide, again, no specifics for analysis. Then there is the propensity to through up past history as if it was headlines in yesterdays daily paper!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States

The supreme court rules on the constitutionality of a criminal conviction. By upholding it as constitutional they send someone to jail. So you are wrong. History informs the future. Your fundamental argument in this thread is that historic documents should be used with historic interpretations to limit the mandate of government, yet when someone presents history you don't like you attempt to shut it down by being irrelevant due to being not current. It would be equally ridiculous for me to tell you to stop quoting some document from the 18th century in a thread about the 21st.

[DuncanONeil]

"By upholding it as constitutional they send someone to jail. So you are wrong."
I am wrong!?!? By the time a case get to the Supreme's the person has already been convicted and sentenced. The subject to said case is not even permitted into the Supreme's presence. Their ruling does not put a person in jail, they can only make it possible for them to be removed from jail, or prison as the case may be.

"History informs the future." Good line! I like that! But that is not what you are doing with your historical references. You are presenting them as fait accompli to the way the nation is now. That is not "informing the future", That is more like the past is the future. That no matter what is learned or how things change what ever happened in the past can never change. Kind of like Your great grand uncle Jake was a cattle rustler so you must have stolen my cows.
What history that you have presented did I not like and how is it possible for me to "shut history down"? I would need access to a black hole to do that!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States

The supreme court rules on the constitutionality of a criminal conviction. By upholding it as constitutional they send someone to jail. So you are wrong. History informs the future. Your fundamental argument in this thread is that historic documents should be used with historic interpretations to limit the mandate of government, yet when someone presents history you don't like you attempt to shut it down by being irrelevant due to being not current. It would be equally ridiculous for me to tell you to stop quoting some document from the 18th century in a thread about the 21st.

[SadisticNature]

"By upholding it as constitutional they send someone to jail. So you are wrong."
I am wrong!?!? By the time a case get to the Supreme's the person has already been convicted and sentenced. The subject to said case is not even permitted into the Supreme's presence. Their ruling does not put a person in jail, they can only make it possible for them to be removed from jail, or prison as the case may be.

"History informs the future." Good line! I like that! But that is not what you are doing with your historical references. You are presenting them as fait accompli to the way the nation is now. That is not "informing the future", That is more like the past is the future. That no matter what is learned or how things change what ever happened in the past can never change. Kind of like Your great grand uncle Jake was a cattle rustler so you must have stolen my cows.
What history that you have presented did I not like and how is it possible for me to "shut history down"? I would need access to a black hole to do that!

You claim to support the following:

(I) You are entitled to free speech because of the constitution.
(II) The constitution is not a document subject to modern interpretations.

So I've pointed out the most famous ruling where the government stripped a supposive constitutional right to free speech. Do you believe the ruling was outright wrong?

It seems to me you can't argue that the constitution should be interpreted as it was written then argue historical constitutional cases are irrelevant and don't reflect the country now, unless you are claiming the ruling was incorrect in those cases.

[DuncanONeil]

You claim to support the following:

(I) You are entitled to free speech because of the constitution.

The statement is true, but you are thereby postulating and absolute right. That aside you citation is moot.

(II) The constitution is not a document subject to modern interpretations.

Where have I said that? The Constitution requires strict interpretation.

So I've pointed out the most famous ruling where the government stripped a supposive constitutional right to free speech. Do you believe the ruling was outright wrong?

It seems to me you can't argue that the constitution should be interpreted as it was written then argue historical constitutional cases are irrelevant and don't reflect the country now, unless you are claiming the ruling was incorrect in those cases.[/QUOTE]
As stated above the ruling is moot!