[The conversation with Rutherford did make me realize that this might be more appropriate. Allegheny Unprising, 1939, in which John Wayne and his fellow Kentucky Backwoodsmen have to take matters into their own hands when unscrupulous merchants solicit the protection of the distant British Military Authorities in their scheme to smuggle liquor and firearms to unfreindly natives, who use the shipments to prey on the settlers.]
A cousin of mine commented on Facebook recently about the controversy surrounding President Obama signing the Great Health Care Takeover of 2010, and remarking about how funny the “social stream” on it was, with remarks about Socialism and the end of Freedom, complete with some “funny takes” from people who are against what the bill aims to do. He referenced another of his Facebook friends who presumably got this ball rolling with this status:
We seriously need a national philosophical debate about what “freedom” means. I don’t understand how freedom is enhanced when everyone has guns to blow people away or when we have no obligation to provide basic needs like health care to one another. Are the dead free? I find the use of the word “freedom” by many in politics bizarre.
I tend to agree. We do need a national debate about what the word “freedom” means, because there are far too many in this nation who keep trying to confuse it with something else.
I like to start with the dictionary. Presumably, we all speak English, and unless I am trying to define a term of art used in my profession, which usually sends me to consult with my good friends Mr. Black and Mr. Barrons, I prefer to consult with Mr. Webster. Not only was he a patriot, but his definitions embody time-tested meanings and connect this century to the ones prior. I find it to be more informative than the newspeak tumbling from the lips of people with a vested interest in me not knowing the truth.
From my Webster’s Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language:
1.the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint: He won his freedom after a retrial.
2.exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.
3.the power to determine action without restraint.
4.political or national independence.
5.personal liberty, as opposed to bondage or slavery: a slave who bought his freedom.
6.exemption from the presence of anything specified (usually fol. by from): freedom from fear.
7.the absence of or release from ties, obligations, etc.
8.ease or facility of movement or action: to enjoy the freedom of living in the country.
9.frankness of manner or speech.
10.general exemption or immunity: freedom from taxation.
11.the absence of ceremony or reserve.
12.a liberty taken.
13.a particular immunity or privilege enjoyed, as by a city or corporation: freedom to levy taxes.
14.civil liberty, as opposed to subjection to an arbitrary or despotic government.
15.the right to enjoy all the privileges or special rights of citizenship, membership, etc., in a community or the like.
16.the right to frequent, enjoy, or use at will: to have the freedom of a friend’s library.
17.Philosophy. the power to exercise choice and make decisions without constraint from within or without; autonomy; self-determination.Compare necessity (def. 7).
origin: 900; ME fredom, OE frēodōm. See free, -dom—Related formsnon·free·dom, nouno·ver·free·dom, nounun·free·dom, noun—Synonyms
1. Freedom, independence, liberty refer to an absence of undue restrictions and an opportunity to exercise one’s rights and powers. Freedom emphasizes the opportunity given for the exercise of one’s rights, powers, desires, or the like: freedom of speech or conscience; freedom of movement. Independence implies not only lack of restrictions but also the ability to stand alone, unsustained by anything else: Independence of thought promotes invention and discovery. Liberty, though most often interchanged with freedom, is also used to imply undue exercise of freedom: He took liberties with the text. 9. openness, ingenuousness. 12. license. 16. run.
While they are all good, I think that 2, 3 and 17 sum it up pretty well, and that any serious reflection on it should lead one to consider that we no longer have it.
We didn’t come to this point quickly. It has been the culmination of a long, slow process by which the average American citizen has allowed themself to succumb to the idea that he can’t. The idea that he can’t make smart decisions for himself. The idea that he can’t make an informed decision without consulting the “experts”, many of whom have made themselves eminently well-versed in theory without ever imbibing in the courage to test those theories against the harsh edge of reality. The idea that he can’t apply the rules by which he must live to the problems that face this country because they are so complex that they will resist the application of simple wisdom. And too often, this opinion is resoundingly echoed by those, who like a child that declares to hate a food they have never even tried, reject these everyday guideposts, secure in the untested knowledge that the self-appointed experts, and only the self-appointed experts can save us from ourselves.
How do we fix America? Any five-year old can say “look to the Constitution and the Bible”. Utter simplistic nonsense. We need policy. The folks represented in the cartoon couldn’t come up with policy if their life depended on it …. and I’m not sure they could recognize good policy if it smacked them between the eyes.
Your cartoon was right on … but not for the reasons you think.
Two things have given this opinion a legitimacy it hasn’t earned. The first is a post-modern philosophy that has taken root in all aspects of society. Though disturbing, it was not unexpected. As we allowed a vocal minority to push christianity out of the daily life of society in to the boxes labeled “Sunday” and “church”, where they could no longer provide a meaningful prism with which to view society, nature, and man’s role in both, in an increasingly busy world, we looked to the next best thing for the answers to the questions that two working parents with children, and schedules burdened with bills and activities no longer had time to ponder. We looked to SCIENCE!
The problem with this is that once we started to look to SCIENCE!, that meant that we had to accept the constant and enduring feature of SCIENCE!…the paradigm shift. This meant a subtle acceptance of the concept that the “truths” of SCIENCE! change with the increase of knowledge. Because this ever-changing nature was a product of this process, we soon bought into the idea of turning to the experts to explain and break things down for us. And from there, it really wasn’t much of a stretch at all to come to the belief that the only inevitable truth is that there is no inevitable truth. Once we arrive there, we reach a point where we have been conditioned to acquiesce to tyrannies large and small because we cannot possibly understand what is happening, or what it means, and as a result, too many of us become willing to surrendering choices that are our individual purview alone to exercise or not exercise.
The second thing is that we have sorely abused the roadmap and guiding principles that our forebears formulated, debated, and put to paper.
The Declaration of Independence was not simply an act of defiance against a distant despot. It was a stark recognition that every human being possesses rights that are intrinsic to his or her very existence, and that are not granted by governments of men, which at best can merely enshrine those rights, and at worst, impede them, but never create or bestow them any more than they could create life from lifelessness. This document was a recognition of the individual, and the choices reserved to him or her who were fortunate enough to live in a country that recognized these rights.
The Constitution was the blueprint for a three-part limited government that respected the rights of the individual, but would provide a strong national aegis under which the co-equal sovereigns established pursuant to the concept of federalism could prosper. But over the course of centuries, we have stood and watched as the distinctions and duties of the individual branches of the federal government have become purposely blurred, and government as a whole has increasingly determined that its business is being in our business. As a result, the rights reserved to us have become pockmarked with asterisks, anchoring exceptions and explanations why reservations of rights plainly stated don’t really mean what they say. The “experts” and peddlers of complexity have so burdened these bylaws that those who haven’t paid attention or considered the implications are willing to join in the chorus of those who have something to gain by telling us that “it isn’t that simple” , and then set out to tell us that if we only surrender more control to them, they can fix the problem. And, of course, at every step, government is there with a big stick in one hand, with the other outstretched for money, telling us how we are to proceed with whatever we are trying to do.
Do you want to have a pet? You have to license it. Don’t want to spay or neuter it? The fee would be double. You want to build a shed in your backyard? No problem. Get a permit from the county. They will even be so polite as to tell you where you can’t put it on your own property. You want to remodel your bathroom? Sure. Just get your permit$, consent to having it in$pected by a stranger, and oh, sorry. You can’t have THAT toilet. The government has determined that it uses too much water, and no, they don’t care if you have to flush more than once. You want to start a business? Excellent! Be sure to get all necessary licen$e$ from your city, your $tate, and your county, and be prepared to share information which is none of their damn business with them on a regular basis. And if these direct intrusions and invasions were not enough of an impediment to your ability to act without interference and regulation, we have strayed into the world of “Government Knows Best” and its favorite new practice, Nudge.
There is a time in everyone’s life when someone will decide what is best for you, and give you the illusion of choice. When my sons were three, I would often let them choose between wearing the green t-shirt or the blue t-shirt. I made this choice because they were the shirts that were clean, but I wanted the boys to start learning how to make simple daily choices as part of growing up. As they have gotten older, I let them make more choices, but always within the confines of what I have decided would be best for them. We go through this process with the intent and purpose of teaching them how to make good choices so that when they reach a certain age on the cusp of adulthood and independence, they can make their own decisions, just as our parents did for us. The fact is I have been legally, and in fact, an adult, for over 20 years now. And yet the self-appointed experts have moved themselves in to government, and aim to use its power to infantilize us all, and make our decisions for us. This is wrong. This is wrong because first and foremost, government answers to us, not the other way around, and it is wrong because it is not government’s proper role to try to mitigate the consequences of the decisions we make as individuals by limiting those choices to only the ones it approves of in the first place. Of all the practices perpetrated by government that negatively impact our freedom, Nudge is the worst, because it presumes that:
a) Some “expert”, directly or indirectly employed by the government has studied “the problem” and determined “the solution”, therefore
b) They have the right to steer you into acting in the manner that they have determined is best; and
c) That it is perfectly acceptable for them to make those decisions for you.
How does Nudge work? Very simply, Nudge is about limiting choices in order to “nudge” you in what they have determined is the “right” direction. That way, they are spared the burden of having to try to pursuade you to do things that way, and the frustration of you making your own choices that would reject their expertise. They don’t want to bother with those inconvenient discussions about your rights, or the fact that you have already grown up and aren’t looking to make people who serve you into latter-day parents.
Nudge comes in big and small packages. Let’s say that someone in government decides that energy conservation is not just a good idea, but a moral imperative. Knowing from experience that those pesky citizens will refuse to recognize their inferiority to the Deciders, and resist the various attempts to implement this policy, they decide that they cannot mandate that people start using the squiggly little compact flourescent bulbs in their homes. Instead, they determine that incandescent light bulbs are inefficient, and must therefore be regulated out of existence. No one told those pesky citizens that they couldn’t decide to spend the extra couple of bucks a month on energy to use incandescent light in their homes, they simply made their designated alternative tremendously less expensive and troublesome. Nudge.
The experts long ago decided that guns in the hands of the public are bad. However, despite repeated efforts to install enough progressive jurists who subscribe to the view that the Constitution is a living, breathing document that allows jurists to craft processes by which they can build institutions of government that are absent from the blueprint (because they contradict the intentions and institutions actually established), they have not yet managed to issue a decision that accomplishes what the legislative branch has thus far lacked the courage to attempt directly: a gun ban. But never fear! Nudge is here! The experts have determined the answer: simply have an executive agency determine that the main component of ammunition, lead, is an environmental hazard. Can citizens still buy ammunition? Yes, but now it is much more expensive and far less effective. Not enough? Have another regulatory agency decide that it has the right to track ammunition sales. Regulation. Intimidation. Intrusion. Nudge.
But this malignant practice is no more onerous than where it is employed in the arena of “health”. Passage of Medicare and Medicaid was the culmination of a wet dream for the control freaks and petty tyrants drawn to the power of government, because they knew that this was a way into the minutia of the daily lives of the average American, and control exerted here, would allow control over everything. It was the stepping stone for health care reform and the warehousing of knowledge on each and every one of us that could be incredible tools for abuse if they came into the wrong hands, and anyone who has ever opposed an administration and then been audited knows that kind of abuse never happens. But the most immediate effect is that other people decide what is and what is not healthy for us, and they have decided that we have to do it their way. They have substituted our judgement with their own, and believe that an excessive and unwarranted usurpation of authority into areas not designated to government gives them the right and the duty to make decisions for us, be it banning the use of transfats to prepare foods that no one believes are good for us, declaring a war on salt, banning the sale of sodas, and determining that our health care providers must store our information, including BMI and other details in a central database, where people who do not know us will pass judgment on our behaviors and practices, and determine that we MUST change. It is a bit like the homeless person inviting himself into your home, having a seat at the dinner table, eating your food, then criticizing your menu and demanding you make changes. But that is the natural progression…entitlements will eventually make you slaves to them. But the latest health-related Nudge to make my blood boil comes from my own county…again.
Let me preface this with the admission that aside from the very occasional cigar, I am not a smoker. That said, I have been appalled by Pierce County’s approach to smoking and smokers. Several years ago, armed with the debunked studies about the health effects of second hand smoke, the county health authorities took it upon themselves to declare that owners of restaurants, bars, and bowling alleys could no longer determine for themselves if their patrons could smoke in their establishments. I was appalled. The state supreme court saw it my way, shockingly, but the state legislature decided to make it law everywhere in the state. Now a group calling themselves P.U.S.H…People United for Smoke-Free Housing, has decided that they would like the local health authorities to classify smoking as a nuisance in multi-unit housing, and to have the finding inserted into the state landlord-tenant act, claiming that second-hand smoke could seep into non-smoker’s units and bother those residents. Such a finding could then allow landlords to evict smokers based on the complaints of non-smokers.
Let that sink in for a moment . We are now considering having government again restrict a lawful activity, and prevent people from doing it in their own homes. This is unacceptable. If we allow this, then there is nothing that government cannot regulate, intrude on, or interfere with. Nothing. Especially in the light of the new justifications they can seize upon in claiming that we are all paying for each other’s health care. It will justify a peek into your pantry, a fine for those potato chips, and warning letters for ice cream. This cannot stand. I had parents, but I grew up. I own my choices now, and you cannot have them. You can have my steak when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.
I’ve come to the conclusion that our ancestors would be ashamed of us. The people who tamed a continent would look at our willingness to subject every action to government approval and spit. The people who faced chicken pox and typhoid with equal dignity, while eating red meat and butter three or four times a week would apply the mother of all brain dusters to the backs of our miserable skulls. The men who went to the moon with slide rules and kept their firearms after keeping us free would roll their eyes and leave us to the tender mercies of the collectivist ideals that we have slowly come to embrace. While these ideals make control easier, they do nothing for the spirit and shackle every decision we the people make to those no better, and sometimes worse than ourselves, so that they may benefit from our decisions first. That is NOT freedom, no matter how good the experts have determined it to be for me or you. I’m really starting to resent Nudge. I think its time we started to respond to Nudge with SHOVE.
I can’t wait for the responses from the usual retards on this one.
**Grabs cold beer and cheeseburger**
Dick, I found your calling:
As said best by Robin Williams, “It’s not the end of the world, but you can see it from here.“
Hey G …. who woulda thunk Iraqis had a sense of humor? 😉
I nearly pissed myself when I read that. Funny, but I supose you had to be there… 😉
“I’ve come to the conclusion that our ancestors would be ashamed of us.”
Yes they would. The Framers revolted over a less oppressive government than what we have now.
Less intrusive maybe, but certainly not less oppressive.
SOMEONE speaks with some sense! So Washington D.C. does not equal King George III. (Except in the bizarro mind of Elric.)
But we are on our way… 😉
I really hate it when I publish something that isn’t done instead of saving it as a draft…
If this was a draft, well then my friend, I’m not worthy…
Oh, it’s done now.
I got dragged out of the house before I could finish the last paragraph, spellcheck, and add an image.
Blackiswhite,
This was incredible. Thank you for taking the time and care to put something so eloquently into words that so many of us have thought and felt but didn’t know how to say.
I have said this before, and I’ll say it again: If we dig deep enough, if we get to the bare bones of morality and our existence, then we have only one of two options: Christ or nihilism.
The Brits never tried to control the colonists through health care which when you control someones health care, you control their very well being. Yeah these thugs are more oppressive and they arent done yet.
Rep. Pete Stark: Federal Government Can Do Most Anything
The Brits “control” their own through nationalized health care presently, you doofus. And back in 1776 we didn’t have health insurance to begin with.
I hope Dick got to finish his cold beer and cheeseburger before you started commenting here.
You were saying…
Now who’s doing a bait and switch? I said nothing about the quality of the UK health care system. All I said was the absurdity of Elric saying King George III didn’t force health care insurance on us — a pure dumbass statement.
I believe the bulk of Elric’s comment is in the video and the Fed saying they can do anything they want.
Doofus and dumbass, huh. Elric makes sense.
The specifics for this unconstitutional control-grab in our nation OF-effin-COURSE has changed from 1776. It’s actually worse now because nationalized health care is even more of an invasion and violation of our rights as citizens. Reagan spoke of it as the final blow.
Obfuscation with name-calling, like dog-crap, won’t fly here. Try it out on your sheeple friends.
*okay – back to that glass of wine and my book*
BiW … regarding your chosen image …. can you not see the irony there? Isn’t that a Native American in the middle of the photo? What do you think about the way we handled their “freedom” when we came on board. 😉
Nice strawman- didn’t realize we were playing bait-and-switch…
R, you tool. Do you even know what movie the image is from?
I love Fonda but no I don’t. (That is Fonda, isn’t it?)
Yes, it is Henry Fonda. And before you start pissing and moaning about the treatment of natives, you should probably actually watch the movie so you don’t look so much like an ass.
Drums Along The Mohawk.
Henry Fonda. Claudette Colbert. John Carridine. Ward Bond. John Ford directed it.
It’s a classic for a reason.
I will look for it and rent it if possible. You’re suggesting I learn the truth about our treatment of Indians from a 1930’s Hollywood movie?
You’d be surprised. In fact, if I was you R, I’d slot away some time to cover most of the John Ford collection. I truly think you’ll be surprised, and well entertained…
There is very little Hollywood gets completely right with regard to history, R. However, the film is about settlers on the New York frontier during the Revolutionary War. Among other things, it includes the Battle of Oriskany, and demonstrates that the Indians had differing loyalties, some with the British, and some with the Americans, but again, at that time in our history, we made the attempt to live in peace with the natives.
“There is very little Hollywood gets completely right with regard to history, R.” – BiW
Too true, but I certainly appreciate the classics. I find that their errors are less, intentional, than current efforts.
G, no bait and switch at all. Someone who screams about America the free and ignores the birth of our Nation founded on denying the freedoms of those who already lived here is at worst a hypocrite and at best just tossing around platitudes.
You really could benefit from a closer study of history, R.
Our nation was NOT founded on the denial of freedom to the natives. You could make a case that it was expanded on it, but not founded on it. Do the research. The Founders were hardly anti-native. Now later, with Democrats like Andy Jackson, you have a different story. But then the Democrats have always had to put someone down…
Indeed true. Ole Andy hated Indians to the point that he wanted them dead. Hmmmmmm, sounds so Southern Democrat…
You’re right … I was wrong to use the word “founded”. Our founding principles are pretty much beyond reproach (no sarcasm intended) but they were not executed in a progressive fashion … hence slavery remained and Indians were killed or put on reservations.
This is a really stupid analogy, even for you, R.
“You’re a hypocrite for “screaming” about the loss of freedom when the Manifest Destiny crowd started to push the natives on to reservations almost 200 years ago.”
Really, who outside of kindergarten would remotely think that is a relevant argument?
How about telling me where I was wrong with the analysis, R? It would likely be equally fallacious, but infinately more entertaining, and perhaps even on point.
I’m going to bed but if I can work up the energy tomorrow, I’ll say more …. This cry for freedom coming from the citizens of the freest nation on the Earth always rings hollow with me. And the fact that it inevitably gets tied to religion puts a thorn in my side too.
I’d like you to at least catagorically identify where BiW goes wrong…
What happened was inevitable. How it happened was unconscionable.
Very interesting comment, really. Are you referring to manifest destiny?
Yeah
I was never completely comfortable with that notion … especially the idea that it was God’s will that we spread Democracy from sea to shining sea.
I was never completely comfortable with that notion … especially the idea that it was God’s will that we spread Democracy from sea to shining sea.
I appreciate this comment from you, Rutherford. Thanks. I seriously mean it.
I’m humbled and grateful to be an American citizen. We are re truly blessed. We are generous here and beyond our own borders. The statistics don’t lie.
But I want to address one small distinction in your wording. I don’t sense a need to spread democracy as if I am personally capable of any such thing. It’s about attraction rather than promotion.
*ready for a second glass of that wine*
but they were not executed in a progressive fashion …
If you were here, I probably would have hauled off and crossed your eyes with a vicious and reflexive brain duster.
Progressive? Really?
LOL!!!
I’d like you to at least catagorically identify where BiW goes wrong…
I’d like it too, but he would have to drop his dismissive pose, and look at the issue long and hard. It’s already been a year of disappointment for him, and I’m not sure he can take much more evidence that he’s on the wrong side of this one.
Too true, but I certainly appreciate the classics. I find that their errors are less, intentional, than current efforts.
I don’t know about that. I’m able to put aside the fact that Mel Gibson is a human douchebag when I watch “The Patriot”, and there is more than enough truth in the fictionalized account…the Banister Tarylton character, the Black Robe Regiment character, Howe, Nathaniel Greene, and the way that the militia had to make its way through the conflict.
Besides, I get choked up everytime he loses a kid to the British.
But is that not more the exception than the rule? We’re not talking Oliver Stone here…
Notice the drone completely ignored Stark’s fascist comment?
Or if nudge doesn’t work they use the arbitrary whims of bureaucratic bad faith to regulate those they deem malefactors out of existence. At this point the so-called progressive are aggressively interpreting any number of laws to shut down or greatly inhibit how Americans go about their lives. When congress hasn’t outright ceded authority(which they have no real right to do) the Executive has come up with dubious interpretations and assertions of what is or isn’t to be enforced. They ignore court orders that stay their hand. Arbitrary enforcement of the laws is tyranny. Holding up the enforcement of duly executed laws for political gains is the stuff of third world banana republics.When the rule of law breaks down the arbitrary and capricious rule of men creates doubt and inhibits freedom. Constitutional duties, clearly defined, are deprecated while they proceed in areas that are not or never were considered proper areas of Federal prerogative. In a country that was truly governed by integrity as opposed to faction the malfeasance and utter ignorance of the law to the detriment of our liberty that has been demonstrated by this group would engender the powers that be to begin proceedings for the removal of this growing blight.
Here is a nice example of how they intend to use whimsical bureaucratic process to tie the health insurance industry(and thus yoke us to the state for our very existence) with 100lb concrete blocks on their ankles and expect them to swim. All with the pre-packaged diatribe that the “market failed” in order to have explicit control of your life and justify how a government which can’t do something as simple as PATROL A BORDER is going to make something as complex and personal as health care cheaper, better and more available.
http://www.nationalreview.com/critical-condition/245625/centrally-planning-market-failure-avik-roy
Click also on the Robert Book link as it will take you to a more extensive exegesis on the subject.
The healthcare law is obviously set up for this administration to set standards that no health insurance business, or any business can operate under. That simpleton Sibelius can set it up so health insurance companies must operate at a loss. There is only one entity in the US that can do that and it isn’t the insurance companies.
The preternatural arrogance, intellectual conceit and utter mendacity of our self anointed betters is becoming more manifest everyday. They are Machiavellian and convinced of their own superiority and will use any duplicitous means to sate their bloated egos and validate their unending self esteem.
They need to control and insult us everyday that we as unenlightened troglodytes can’t recognize their brilliant utterances for the genius that they represent. Of course we do know what it is they spout as it is the failed litany of the “progressive” movement which is the vanguard of reactionary movements which seek to re-enslave the human race just as medieval potentates subjugated the vassals and serfs. The King was all and all was the King. All land and economy was the Kings to dispense how does this set up really differ from what those who call themselves “progressives” who wish the state to dictate the distribution of sustenance based on some perverted notion of grievance and “fairness”. In order to make these decisions the population must be shackled any notion that the individual has sovereignty over his lot in life must be extinguished by propaganda or physical coercion.
Any time a person raises himself(except of course those who spout the progressive pablum) above the crowd the first thought in the “progressives” mind is that person must have done something illegal or immoral. They can’t conceive that any one but those with “progressive” ideals can be a success. This is because in practice the only way one progresses in the progressive society is to play the system and cut the throat of your competitor as in the eyes of most “progressives” success is a zero sum gain. This is why the market puzzles them they don’t or can’t understand that free exchange produces multi-millions of win-win situations every day. The producer gets what he want the customer gets what he wants hence win-win.
This is the essence of freedom and ordered liberty in this country. Millions of ordinary people free to contract and interact and equal in the eyes of the law.
Another example of “nudging” is taxing you for parking at work to “nudge” you into taking public transportation. Bet the fascist loving drones love that.
BiW, you suggested these as the primary or best definitions of freedom…
2.exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.
3.the power to determine action without restraint.
17.Philosophy. the power to exercise choice and make decisions without constraint from within or without; autonomy; self-determination.
And those are fine definitions of freedom. The thing is, we don’t WANT total and unlimited freedom in every regard. Our nation was never designed to be an anarchy, but a Representative Republic, with taxation, laws governing behavior (ie external controls restraining liberty, constraining our choices). On this point, I am sure we agree, right?
That is to say, we don’t WANT our neighbor to have the “freedom” to dump toxic waste in their backyard NOR in our backyard. We WANT to pool our money to pay for common needs (fire protection, police, roadways, waterways, air, defense, etc).
This has always been the intent of our gov’t and no one really wants an anarchy, right? And I’m pointing this out to just establish some common ground to aid in understanding.
We DO WANT our neighbor to be “constrained” from dumping toxic waste in our yard and even in THEIR yard, right? We WANT to limit their freedom in at least that basic way, right?
I point this out to establish that we ALL want limits on freedom, not an unconstrained anarchy, and so to understand that it’s not one “side” advocating liberty and the other “side” advocating oppression. It’s a matter of WHICH constraints we wish to see legalized and which ones not, right?
Further, we all agree upon the notion of taxation. Thomas Jefferson certainly did. You’ll recall that he hoped to establish public education paid for by taxes on the wealthy alone. Our founders were clearly not opposed to any and all taxation. Rather, they just wanted taxation WITH representation.
Are we agreed on these points so far?
[And, for the record, I shall strive to constrain myself from responding to ad homs and strawmen and other attacks and fallacious arguments. If you make a comment (“Dan’s just a commie!”) and I don’t respond, it’s because you made a comment not worthy of comment because it was a strawman, ad hom or other nonsense. I’ll gladly continue this conversation, though, with anyone who wishes to comment on my actual points.]
“This has always been the intent of our gov’t and no one really wants an anarchy, right?”
The intent of our government is to control us moron. Of course you know that and thats why you drones wont ever comment on comments like Peter Stark. And no one is proposing anarchy you stupid shit. We just want a government limited by the Constitution. Not a government that feels it can do whatever it wants as Peter Stark said.
The thread fails to do justice to an excellent post. This is far too often the case in the internet world and that really kinda sucks.
I found his post to be very clear on its focus and its posing of a question set that should be provoking deeper thought.
I find it hilarious that anyone that says that someone who attended a racist, antisemitic “church” for 20 years is a real Christian is calling for deeper thought. The same moron that took 18 months to figure out that al-Thuggy is worse than FDR. Nice try al-Faheed.
cracklick66
I know I really should just ignore you…
TUCC is greater than any of its parts. I know you are incapable of deep thought but if people really look into TUCC,BLT and black churched folks in America we would be on a better road.
As for Obama being worse than FDR.Yeah it took him and his administration that long to actually do something I found to be truly over the line. When I made the comment I also outlined why and how all of Obamas other evils were not much since they are all in flux. The case against AZ was and is the greatest evil from the current Oval and even that is justified sadly given how the nation has been nudged and guided like sheep to the pens we have as a nation.
Now go back to bed your cousin is calling you.
Even more hilarious when a coward who cant hack it on his blog and bans me has to take shots at me on someone else’s blog because he is too much of a coward to do it on his blog.
Almost sounds like a leftist actually.
“Now go back to bed your cousin is calling you.”
Actually muslims are more prone to marry and have sex with their cousins but dont let that stop you from making ridiculous statements moron. Now take your own advice and ignore me dumbass since you banned me on your leftist/islamist pandering blog. Be a man for once and stand on principles. I know thats difficult for moderate pussies such as yourself.
Now if I said that al-Thuggy sleeps with his cousin, al-Faheed would get in his typical moderate hissyfit and call me a liar and defend al-Thuggy’s “honor”. Would you al-Faheed? 🙂
So much good material in your post …. yeah, we have slipped backward down the slope a long way since we were handed the world’s most valuable gift and so many of us have decided to reject it.
But the cornerstone of freedom is responsibility and there are enough Americans who have succumbed to the siren song of the welfare state and its “benefits” – provided by those who are still willing to work for their livelihood – to ensure that the would-be tyrants are gaining more and more power. Independence (and freedom) requires hard work and commitment and a willingness to withstand the hard knocks that life will administer, let alone escape the insidious embrace of those who offer a crumbs of comfort purported to ease the stress that accompanies individuality and maturity.
“WE ALL DECLARE FOR LIBERTY; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others, the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men’s labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name—-liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names—-liberty and tyranny.”
—–Abraham Lincoln, 1864
You could replace the word “liberty” with “freedom” and it would still apply.
Ok, I was hoping to NOT have to do this.
Elric, I like you. I also like Alfie. Differences of opinion are fine. I will, at times, disagree with each of you. It might prompt me to say something in response, but I like having Alfie’s participation, just as I like having yours, and the gangpile of derisive comments is overkill, M’kay? Thanks.
I didnt say he shouldnt comment. Im not a moderate/leftist that believes in banning. Just saying if he feels the need to ban me then he shouldnt be a hypocrite and engage me here. Now of course, I didnt ban him so I am free to engage him. Thats all. 🙂
Yes. I know. I have yet to be steered wrong by Mr. Webster.
The laws at that time were based on a common moral frame of reference, and penalized those who strayed outside of society’s moral norms. The thought of a government that would declare a naturally occurring gas that helps plants to grow as being a pollutant would have horrified them, both in the fact that their creation had grown strong enough to do so, and that their posterity had grown so mentally flacid as to let it do so.
This is a really dishonest tactic of debate, and to be frank, it annoys the hell out of me. Do not assume that we agree. If we agree, I will say so, but my assent is not something for you to presume.
Why is this always the fallback for the left whenever there is any discussion of freedoms or taxes? I cannot dispute that government, both Federal and local has certain duties to we the people that have been enumerated to it. That fact does not transmute the other matters that government has usurped into legitimate exercises of their authority.
Here on the left coast, we have California and Washington with severe budget crises. Here in Washington, our governor made a big show about still putting forth a budget that “reflects the values of Washington”, and then turned around and started to threaten basic services if they don’t get tax increases, yet they maintain entitlements. The entitlements ARE NOT basic duties. They are a means for making an entire class of voters dependent on government, and thus making them reliable votes, but Teachers, Firefighters, and LEOs are part of their assigned duties; the entitlements, and refusal to trim state and county unionized workforces are NOT.
I established the “common ground” in the body of the post itself. Perhaps we could actually discuss those topics rather than your strawmen?
When did I say “Man, I wish I could just dump those barrels of tetrachloroethylene in my backyard without someone bitching about it, and hauling me into court!”?
That, by the way, is part of your clue as to where you get your example wrong. Dumping toxic waste would constitute a public nuisance, which means that offenders run afoul of the law without state and federal agencies sucking up tax dollars and expanding their authority to ridiculous extremes because they cannot get more clout and more money simply by attempting to make what is already illegal more illegal.
Dan, aside from drawing the picture in crayon for you, I’m not sure what can be done to make it clearer that I’m pointing out unmistakable excesses by our employees.
Dan, when in the course of our illustrious republic did we find ourselves burdened with a permanent federal income tax?
And who was supposed to apply to? Did Fediathan keep it confined to those limits?
Now look to see when Federal agencies started to come into being and expand like a cancer-filled organ?
The Founders would have been disgusted at the thought of a joint tax scheme between municipalities, counties, states, and the federal government which takes in excess of 40% of some people’s income. And the idea of federal tax credits that actually pay cash to people who pay nothing? Yeah, YOU get to tell Sam Adams that one.
I think it’s fair to say that inasmuch as you have stated some of the obvious things that were never in doubt as far as my post is concerned, yes. As for the rest, I cannot say, since you answered on what you apparently wished I said, rather than what I DID say.
And once again, leave this particular “We all agree on this” rhetorical tool in your kitbag. I don’t want to see it here again.
THANK YOU BiW. Amen, and Amen!
You topic is well introduced, well defended, and well policed in the thread IYKWIM. Thanks.
It’s a beautiful day. Weather is finally cooled down a tad here in Texas. So enuff-said from me today.
Enjoy, Beloved Morons. Carry on.
BiW…
This is a really dishonest tactic of debate, and to be frank, it annoys the hell out of me. Do not assume that we agree. If we agree, I will say so, but my assent is not something for you to presume.
It is a dishonest tactic to ask if we agree?
1. It is not “dishonest,” I can assure you of that much. It was a very honest question asking if we agree on a point on which I felt sure we do agree.
2. I apologize if asking that honest question is something you find offensive. I shall refrain from asking that sort of question in that manner in the future. Rather, I shall say, “this is what I’m saying. Do we agree on that?”
I hope that settles the problem with my question in the future.
Carrying on, then…
I cannot dispute that government, both Federal and local has certain duties to we the people that have been enumerated to it. That fact does not transmute the other matters that government has usurped into legitimate exercises of their authority.
Good. If I am understanding you correctly, we are agreed that gov’t RIGHTLY limits our freedoms in some ways, and that this is a good and right function of our gov’t.
Further, it appears that we readily agree that taxation for the purpose of funding gov’t functions/programs is not the problem in and of itself. The question then is: Which programs are wrongly funded by gov’t (if any) and which ones are rightly funded by gov’t? Is that a fair way to look at it?
I hope that settles the problem with my question in the future.
Apparently, it resolved nothing, so I guess I have step back, and try again.
When you try to establish that we agree to something that was never called into question by the essay itself, I take that as an attempt not only to avoid the points raised in the body of the piece I took the time to write, but also as a way to gain a rhetorical foothold by obtaining my consent or agreement to something that was never in doubt, and it lends a taint of the incorrect to my perspective when you choose to drop your inevitable “But…” into the debate at a later time. It’s insulting, it’s off-topic, and it’s presumptive. Don’t bring it. Don’t bring it as an “honest question”, and don’t bring it as a reframing tool for debate. Think ANTI-NIKE. Just don’t do it.
Good. If I am understanding you correctly, we are agreed that gov’t RIGHTLY limits our freedoms in some ways, and that this is a good and right function of our gov’t.
Dan, I have never contested government’s legitimate roles, and unlike most on the left, I read clearly enough to know that it exceeded those legitimate functions long, long ago. This post was about how it has and continues to exceed those roles. If you want to discuss these government tactics and specific examples, great. If you want to pretend that it isn’t at all certain that it has happened, you might just find that I really don’t buy in to the post-modern approach to epistomology very graciously. I’d prefer not to bother with that, as a conversation that is on topic would be far more entertaining and illuminating.
You asked me…
when in the course of our illustrious republic did we find ourselves burdened with a permanent federal income tax?
I don’t know. When?
You appear to be presuming that a permanent federal income tax is a burden, is that what you’re saying? I would suggest that the HOW of taxation is a matter on which citizens of good will can disagree. Is a federal income tax the best way to legitimately obtain money necessary for legitimate gov’t functions? Or is a sales tax the best way? Or a combination?
I don’t know that there is ONE and only one “right” answer. Do you have an opinion? If so, based upon what?
I don’t know. When?
The 16th Amendment was ratified in 1913. Somehow, we managed to go 137 years without a permanent federal income tax. And yet once we started to feed the beast, it started to grow, and demand more. More money. More freedom. More power.
Up until this point, we managed to have a federal government that met it core obligations.
There is no way to answer the rest of your questions unless or until the government returned to the confines of the authority specifically granted to it, because unless or until that happens, the only answer that government will accept is “MORE.”
You’re a better man than me. His means of dealing with points is to pose absurd question after question. And if you pose a question to him? Well then, the answer will come in the form of a question. Hey Dan, it’s called Google.
I read this and couldn’t help but mutter one thing to myself: I hate you. The rhetorical and intellectual value you add to any discussion is measured in micrometers.
“Is a federal income tax the best way to legitimately obtain money necessary for legitimate gov’t functions?”
Like joke machines and putting monkeys on coke?
Gorilla,
Thats why I dont deal with these drones anymore. Its insane to think you can have an honest debate with them. Its a waste of time. They want tyranny, we want freedom. No common ground.
I rarely read BiW screeds, but Cathy made me read this one.
I liked it.
I feel dirty.
You can castigate me later for it when the Luthern Millenium is in full swing.
But I’m not eating the green jellos with carrot shavings. Not even if your immeasurably better half puts in to pie for me, Batman.
BiW…
I take that as an attempt not only to avoid the points raised in the body of the piece I took the time to write, but also as a way to gain a rhetorical foothold by obtaining my consent or agreement to something that was never in doubt, and it lends a taint of the incorrect to my perspective when you choose to drop your inevitable “But…” into the debate at a later time.
sigh…
1. If I’m having normal conversations under normal circumstances, I would not spend so much time establishing common ground. HOWEVER, in places like this blog, folk so often misrepresent what I have stood for that I find it beneficial to establish that common ground first off, so we can see exactly where we agree and disagree, rather than chasing down red herrings, strawmen and dealing with ad homs.
2. Perhaps you all have had a different experience or something but as a rule, when I ask a question, it is for the purpose of getting the answer to that question. It is not a rhetorical trick, it is not to avoid any points or anything other than an honest question. I’m sorry if you have a hard time believing that, but it is a fact and so I don’t know what else to do with it other than raise the question, when I HAVE a question.
The so-called Left and so-called Right in our nation too often have a hard time communicating basic ideas and I don’t find shouting matches and name-calling silliness to be helpful. What I DO find helpful is healthy conversation. But in this sort of divisive atmosphere, I find it helpful to establish clear common ground before moving on.
Do you disagree with the notion of establishing where we have common ground as a starting point? Even if you do (and I won’t guess, since that appears to hurt your feelings), I hope you understand that I find it helpful and can get over any hurt feelings or insecurity my questions might raise.
It doesn’t hurt my feelings, it irritates me because it presumes much that is not in evidence.
Let me make this easy for you. If it is something I wrote, and you wish to address me on it, then do so. If there is a miscommunication, if you feel I have assumed something underlying your answer, then we’ll address it then, but I really have no patience for the Captain Obvious or the Captain Oblivious approach.
it irritates me because it presumes much that is not in evidence.
But that’s the point: I don’t WANT to presume that I know your answer and so I ask a question to clarify your position. It is a deliberate act of NON-presumption that leads me to ask questions.
If it is something I wrote, and you wish to address me on it, then do so.
Which is exactly what I did. You wrote about the definition of freedom and I asked questions to clarify that we agreed that freedom must need have limitations. In your essay, you made mention after mention of gov’t “intrusion” into our daily lives and never made allowances for the very real responsibility gov’t has to intervene at some time. And so, in order to clarify your position, I asked a question about your quoted definitions, just to clarify that we AGREE that gov’t does have its legitimate place and taxation does have its legitimate place.
It was something you wrote, and I did address you on it, just as you are now suggesting I do.
[…] should go to Taxes, Stupidity and Death and read BiW’s screed on The Meaning of Freedom. I actually read it, because Cathy made me. It’s […]
The 16th Amendment was ratified in 1913. Somehow, we managed to go 137 years without a permanent federal income tax.
So, you don’t think that a federal income tax is a possible legitimate way of raising tax moneys? You don’t think people of good will can disagree on the exact means of raising taxes? You don’t think that whether a sales tax or an income tax or a combination is the best way to go is something Americans can discuss?
I’m guessing that you lost the vote on that one. We’ve had our elected representatives decide (with the voting public’s consent) that it’s a reasonable way of raising taxes. The Public at large has had nearly 100 years to undo that if it were important to them and we haven’t. I’m guessing your fellow citizens don’t agree that a federal income tax is a “wrong” way of doing it.
I’d suggest that, IF that’s the case you want to make, go for it. I’m wide open to suggestions and expect most people are. But, until you make a case that you can sell to the rest of us, this is our law, for better or worse.
For my part, I think the notion of raising necessary money in a Republic has no “right” or easy answers. It’s just something that we wade through the best we can. The person with the best answer, who makes the best case to we, the People, wins. Right now, the income tax folk “win.”
Dan,
I’m afraid you’re still missing the mark. The only way that this post is about taxes is in addressing what government does with it, which has gotten to the point where it can be summed up by stating that it has gotten bigger, bossier, and greedier.
Up until 1913, we would periodically have income tax to pay for wars and other extraordinary functions (or telecommunications taxes…heh) but by and large, the other necessary functions of the federal government were funded by other expressly authorized taxes, such as excise taxes and customs duties.
Once we assented to a federal income tax, sold to us as a tax that would only affect the rich, it grew outside these clearly defined boundaries, much like the government it fed.
Dan, the point is that sadly, the Federal government cannot cite Constitutional authority for much of what it does, and in doing much of what it does, it interferes to an obscene degree not only with the lives of individual citizens, but with the legitimate function of the states, and manages to fund such usurpations with our own money, and money it borrows. The only thing more offensive than an employee that tells me what I can and cannot do in the most basic functions of my everyday life is one that compells me to pay it handsomely for the privildege.
Now if you want to defend the propriety of someone who does not share the guiding principles of those who they deign to govern, who have taken it upon themselves to intrude into the most basic decisions of our daily life, and who frequently conduct themselves in a manner that they would decry as completlely inappropriate if undertaken by we, the little people, then maybe you have actually stumbled upon a nub of an argument. But as I have stated before, using our money to fund entitlements (or special welfare as the Founders and the Framers would have referred to it) and threatening to cut the functions that actually fall within their duties unless they can have MORE reveals much about how our employees view their role, and their relationship to us. It isn’t about government doing its job; its about government obtaining and retaining power, and the belief that our function is only to carry out its wishes and to fund the largesse with which it buys votes.
BiW…
the point is that sadly, the Federal government cannot cite Constitutional authority for much of what it does, and in doing much of what it does, it interferes to an obscene degree not only with the lives of individual citizens, but with the legitimate function of the states
If the gov’t is acting in an unconstitutional manner, then we have recourse: Take it to the Court. If you don’t like the Court’s decision, take your case to the people and convince them you’re right.
I don’t think we, the people, are agreeing with this whole anti-gov’t screed that comes across from the Tea Party-types. We believe gov’t has a role and, while we may often disagree on this or that action, we WANT the gov’t to fulfill its role.
We WANT TANF to be there to help the very least of these. We don’t want to have children begging on the streets or working in poor houses. We don’t want the disabled to starve to death in the gutter. We LIKE having that safety net there, for instance. We think that reflects our American ideals. Beyond that, there would be a COST to society of having un- and under-educated children roaming the streets because their parents are homeless, to having our disabled veterans dying in gutters. We believe it is rational and cost-effective to have a program like TANF, or aid to homeless veterans, or food stamps.
That does not mean that we are opposed to churches, faith groups or other groups stepping in and helping out. By all means, please do so! I suspect most of us would PREFER that solution. But in the meantime, we think TANF-type programs are reasonable and responsible.
Do you disagree? Well, by all means, disagree. It happens. I disagree with funding NASA. I disagree with the size and direction of our Transportation department. And so, we work to make things better. To tweak gov’t and its direction…
BiW…
But as I have stated before, using our money to fund entitlements (or special welfare as the Founders and the Framers would have referred to it) and threatening to cut the functions that actually fall within their duties
We use federal dollars to fund programs we deem responsible and reasonable for the federal gov’t to be involved in. Proposing shrinking one area or another is not an attack on the US or our ideals, just the responsible tweaking we ought to have conversations about.
I think the war on drugs and its corresponding HUGE growth in gov’t and gov’t power is a bad, bad idea. I think having a military larger than the rest of the world would have appalled our founding fathers. I think having prisoner rehab and education programs is just plain responsible and a fiscally wise idea. I think putting an end to policies that encourage and subsidize (ie, “welfare”) personal auto use and implementing policies that encourage more responsible, healthy and sustainable transportation ideas is a good idea.
And so, that gets me back to where I was going to begin with in asking those horrifying clarifying questions: On what grounds ought we implement laws?
We agree that gov’t has a responsibility to implement some laws. We agree that gov’t CAN implement laws that are beyond its purview and beyond what wisdom would dictate.
I’m asking you, what grounds do you think are legitimate grounds for creating laws?
For my part, I think the obvious starting point is that we can outlaw that which causes harm to another, within reason. Your right to swing your arm ends at my nose, that idea.
So, if blowing up a mountain top to get to coal results in harm to the people in the valley below (in that their water turns brown and toxic), we can rightly regulate and/or criminalize that behavior, because it’s causing harm to others? Or, if a public school is harmfully discriminating based on race or religion, that gov’t can step in and take action to end that discrimination? And, if local gov’t doesn’t step in, federal gov’t can?
On what grounds do you propose creating laws, or not?
Also, could we agree that generally speaking, we ought to be wary of laws that are attempting to implement one person’s (group’s) morality where there is no harm? Criminalizing drug use, for instance? Criminalizing gay marriage, for instance?
Dan, is this reall that hard to get?
Gorilla…
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States
That seems pretty broad to me. I’m not a legal scholar, so I have to defer to our Courts and others with more wisdom on the point, but my understanding is that it has been upheld that the federal gov’t is acting within its rights.
I guess, though, that means you would be opposed to criminalizing drug use and gay marriage, since those aren’t specifically listed in the Congressional powers list? I guess also an Air Force and NASA aren’t included specifically, either, so you are opposed to federal dollars being spent on those programs?
I enjoyed my afternoon in our hammock. What a great innovation! So happy to stay out of this one and be sister spectator instead. This dialogue between BiW and Dan demonstrates BiW to hold immense patience, but also intellect and discernment. You go, Bro BiW.
Reminds me of the scads of times we tried to reason with our toddlers & moppets. Their questioning “why?” had little to do with desire to learn and more about their penchant to defy the obvious and push buttons (like liberal-statist techniques, heh). We remained patient, answered as honestly and forthright as we could and employed “broken record” technique we learned in child development training, but it got exhausting.
Have a nice glass of wine on me BiW, and remember there WILL be pie! And hugs.
Here’s a toast to our Host, BiW!
*New Zealand Marlboro Region Savignon Blanc*
Dang, messed up the italics tags…
BiW asked these questions earlier, which I’m not sure of their intent…
And who was supposed to apply to?
Who was the Federal Income tax supposed to apply to at the time it was created? Is that what you’re asking?
I don’t know the answer to that question, if that’s what you’re asking.
Did Fediathan keep it confined to those limits?
By “Fediathan,” do you mean the Federal gov’t (Federal? Leviathan?) Which limits?
Now look to see when Federal agencies started to come into being and expand like a cancer-filled organ?
As our nation grew, We, the People decided that it made sense to have a larger gov’t, too, to manage our various interactions in reasonable ways. If you want to make the case that gov’t is too big, go for it. Most people won’t disagree with you. UNTIL, that is, you start getting into specifics.
Are you wanting to get rid of NASA? Are you wanting to close our many federal prisons? End the “War on Drugs?” Get gov’t out of the wedding business? Reduce our military to a more reasonable size? Get rid of TANF (“welfare” for the poor)? Abolish Social Security? Close the $40 billion Dept of Transportation? Homeland Security?
And, if you do these things, what will the resulting cost to society be and who’s going to pay THOSE bills?
We ALL will disagree about individual programs here and there and without a doubt, there is wastefulness in gov’t spending. AND YET, we, the people believe that gov’t has a role to play. We WANT corporations to have gov’t oversight so they don’t dump toxins. We WANT big expansive highways so we can drive our big expansive cars. We WANT a big ol’ military budget – one larger than the rest of the world combined practically.
I will agree with you that it is difficult to cut back on gov’t programs once they’re in place. But that is not to suggest that most of these programs – even the ones with which we disagree – have no place in gov’t. At least, that is, if we TRULY didn’t want them, then we the people have the ability to vote for and lobby for change. I suspect we have the gov’t we have because it’s what most of us want.
And it doesn’t matter that a minority, for instance, would like to see our military budget or highway budget drastically cut. It doesn’t matter that a minority would like to abolish TANF or the War on Drugs. It takes the will of the people, a majority of the people, to effect change effectively.
You want to see change? Make your case. Win people over to your way of thinking. But to do that, you (generic “you,” ANY of us) would do well to learn how to engage in respectful and well-thought-out dialog.
Dan,
The federal government has directly usurped authority not specifically reserved to it.
As I pointed out to Rutherford recently in the “Choicest Morsel” thread, you might find it instructive to Bing the term “Blue Sky” law. Pay attention to which governments intialally had this authority(Hint: It wasn’t the Feds).
While your at it, you might try to mystically divine where in the Constitution that the Federal Government got the authority to set up the FBI, or the Department of Education.
An Argument could be made for the Constitutional authority for the Department of Transportation, and federal highways, as there is an ennumeration for roads. However, we get pretty far afield when we start talking about its authority to set fuel economy standards or considering law to make all cars white so they reflect more solar energy.
As our nation grew, We, the People decided that it made sense to have a larger gov’t, too, to manage our various interactions in reasonable ways.
NO, “We” didn’t. The birth of federal entitlements is owned lock stock and barrel by FDR, who was correctly told “No.” by the SCOTUS, until he directly threatened them, and they blinked. The birth of rule by regulation has its roots in Woodrow Wilson, who, along with Mitchell Palmer, pioneered the idea of federal bullies to intern “enemy aliens” during a time of war, and to otherwise harrass citizens who happened to not subscribe to the idea that government should or could be acting in loco parentis for We the People.
I have to echo Cathy. After watching Dan for the last few weeks, I can’t stand him. You’re certainly a better man than me.
The federal government has directly usurped authority not specifically reserved to it.
Then take it to the Court and overthrow it.
Then we can talk about what to do next.
Well thought out dialog? You first.
“I don’t think we, the people, are agreeing with this whole anti-gov’t screed that comes across from the Tea Party-types.”
And you say others are dishonest. The tea-party isnt “anti-government”, it wants to go back to a limited government as the Framers intended. I dont care how polite you act, you still are a drone that uses Alinsky tactics.
“Are you wanting to get rid of NASA?”
Your POS “president” is doing that now.
Opposed to smaller gov’t, Elric?
You commie…
“Abolish Social Security?”
No need, its already bankrupt. Congrats
We WANT TANF to be there to help the very least of these. We don’t want to have children begging on the streets or working in poor houses. We don’t want the disabled to starve to death in the gutter. We LIKE having that safety net there, for instance. We think that reflects our American ideals. Beyond that, there would be a COST to society of having un- and under-educated children roaming the streets because their parents are homeless, to having our disabled veterans dying in gutters. We believe it is rational and cost-effective to have a program like TANF, or aid to homeless veterans, or food stamps.
No, We want any such program to originate and be funded by the individual states, as the Federal Government has no authority to distribute and administer special welfare.
Re: Children: Children have come up from nothing to establish themselves without government dependence for quite sometime in our country, and education is and remains the proper jurisdiction of the state, not the federal government.
Re: Disabled Veterans: We the People accepted a measure of responsibilty for these people when we compelled them or they volunteered to serve this nation and forfeit their lives in defense of it and the freedoms we still enjoy. It isn’t the same thing as a special welfare measure which conditions the recipient to come back every month for a check, and the belief that they cannot do for themselves.
We want any such program to originate and be funded by the individual states, as the Federal Government has no authority to distribute and administer special welfare.
I’m fine with this. Make it happen and I’ll support it.
Better yet, have faith groups and civic organizations take over the responsibility and funding and I’ll gladly support that.
In the meantime, I have no problem with the Feds sending money to the states to fund these programs. I don’t think the majority of the US citizenry does, either.
Then take it to the Court and overthrow it.
The same court with the “Wise Latina Woman” and the newest member who doesn’t believe that the Declaration of Independence has any operative meaning in today’s jurisprudence?
Dan. I have another educational term for you to Bing or Google…”The switch in time that saved nine”. You might still argue from the wrong, but I’ll be damned if I let you argue from ignorance.
I read your Blue Sky link. Not sure what that has to do with anything I’ve said thus far.
It has to do with what I’ve been saying thus far.
The states had their own laws to deal with securities regulations and securities frauds. In many cases, their laws were much more adept at targeting offenses and offenders.
Then in the 1930’s, the Feds decided that they wanted to start regulating securities as well, and continued to arbitrariliy expand their authority until they just decided that they were going to assume exclusive jurisdiction over securities fraud in the 1990s. Why? Because they wanted to.
It isn’t a good enough reason.
_________________________________
And your “We the people” wanted it argument further upthread…IF we wanted it, we have a correct way of granting the Federal government authority it doesn’t have. Its called “Amendment”, and it ensures that it real IS something “We the people” want, and not merely something passed by a majority in Congress or determined to be somewhere in the penumbras and eminations of provisions in the Constitution by a handful of unelected jurists.
Also, could we agree that generally speaking, we ought to be wary of laws that are attempting to implement one person’s (group’s) morality where there is no harm? Criminalizing drug use, for instance? Criminalizing gay marriage, for instance?
On what basis do you conclude that there is no harm?
Everytime a parent gets hooked on meth, there is harm. Everytime a son or daughter have to sell themselves and expose themselves to AIDS and venerial disease to fund their drug habit, there is harm. When addicts start their downward spirals, and ineffeciently perform their duties, perhaps committing malpractice while professionals, there is harm. It is not a victimless course of conduct. It is not an activity where the aftereffects are confined to the user.
Gay sex causes a lot of damage to the anus, and provides a convenient vector for disease. Then there is the other harms, which are reflected in the self-depricating and dangerous behavior that is oblivious to the consequences. I know it is also trendy to believe the latest incarnations of psychological determination regarding its effects on those who live the lifestyle, however, as Dr. Satinover pointed out in his book on the subject, the changes to the diagnosis in the DSM were the result of extraordinary political pressure from outside the authorties of the discipline, and the willing collusion of some sympathetic individuals within the establishment that determines what is included in the diagnosis manual. Again, not a victimless course of action, no matter how hard people want to believe otherwise.
Okay, so on what basis do you decide when to legislate and when not to? On whose word do you decide there is harm and when not? And are you suggesting that if someone harms themselves, we ought to have laws stopping that? Or only if they have children?
What guidelines would you embrace for creating laws?
It sounds like you’re supporting a fairly expansive and HUGE gov’t, if you’re advocating creating laws stopping potential harm to individuals by themselves. Are you suggesting criminalizing anal sex because of a potential for harm? If so, are you suggesting this across the board, or just targeting gay folk? How about oral sex? Criminalize it?
If you are saying that we can criminalize gay marriage or drug use because it might harm the individual, are you also okay then with criminalizing auto use (~4 million deaths a year) or mountaintop removal or offshore drilling, which cause serious harm to others? Or how about eating twinkies, which almost certainly contributes more harm than anal sex?
I’m asking questions, once again, to clarify what your position is and to try to get an idea of what rules you’d have for implementing laws/regulations. Naught else.
14 sentences.
11 questions.
0 answers.
Wow. Your back must be sore after moving those goal posts all that way.
I’ll remind you that the fulcrum of your intial question was that there was no harm in those things.
I thank you for your concession that the intitial question was based on an untrue assertion.
And one of the basic roles of government is to protect those who cannot protect themselves. As much as I find it loathsome when interfering busybodies get between parents and children, a drug addicted parent is a threat to the child’s well being. And when it comes to behaviors that cause physical harms due to the actions of another (like buttsecks, suprise and otherwise), I’ll simply defer to my criminal law professor who once glibly intoned “One cannot consent to assault.”
“Okay, so on what basis do you decide when to legislate and when not to?”
The Constitution moron.
You’re right. You’re not a legal scholar.
From the Federalist No. 41:
But what the hell would Madison know, right?
And somewhere in the hereafter, I’m sure he found the strength for a weak cheer when the Court decided that there really are limits to the Commerce Clause when they handed down the Lopez ruling.
and then there is this, from some other famous and notable legal scholars:
Just because the government has been getting it wrong, and creating dependency in the process does not mean that is prudent or advisable to continue compounding the error.
Guess what these all have in common…
TEN POOREST CITIES (City, State, % of People Below the Poverty Level)
1. Detroit, MI 32.5%
2. Buffalo, NY 29..9%
3. Cincinnati, OH 27.8%
4. Cleveland, OH 27.0%
5. Miami, FL 26.9%
5. St. Louis, MO 26.8%
7. El Paso, TX 26.4%
8. Milwaukee, WI 26.2%
9. Philadelphia, PA 25.1%
10. Newark, NJ 24.2%
This goes to Dan:
Based on constant failure, when do you decide that your efforts aren’t working and you need to change your ways? Does this include leadership? How about philosophy? Ideology?
very good read BiW.. sent it along to family.
R
Their ideology prohibits them from trying something else.
I’m off enjoying the holiday with friends and family. Speak later when there’s time…
Peace.
Playing fast and loose with history G. There is no comparing the Democratic party from one era to another. The entity has morphed over the years (as has the Republican Party).
You’re right R, the Dems of the past are the same ones as today. Thanks for the correction!
The GOP hasn’t/isn’t the party of race. You know it, I know it, we all know it.
BiW, I’ve got to jump on your resistance to the “we all agree” rhetoric of Dan.
Here’s the thing. There are times when I could swear that conservatives and liberals speak totally different languages. I think Dan does something wise that I almost never do. He attempts to establish some definitions that we all can agree on before proceeding. The reason you dislike this approach is that you don’t WANT to agree with anything Dan says … and his tactic forces you to.
Elric provided a quote from Abe (one of Elric’s finer moments, I must admit) and it illustrates (combined with the Pete Stark video) how our definitions are totally different. You guys truly see taxation as a form of slavery. I see the very rich being taxed partly to aid the very poor, a very fair proposition. So right off the bat, we differ as to what slavery means.
Earlier this year I made a sad attempt to tackle Plato’s Republic. One of the things I noticed which frustrated me as a reader was how the various speakers went to great detailed lengths to make sure they understood each other as the argument progressed. Yes, I found it a bit tedious but I also see how it was necessary to form a logical argument about the subject.
R you are missing the reality that in a debate the “we agree” thing is just a slick trick to diminish anothers argument.
It is not a means to “clarify”, because I was not being obtuse.
I imagine that your head would probably start spinning around and you would start projectile vomiting if you knew where that Lincoln quote was most recently published.
Again, I’m struggling to understand why your focus seems to be taxation, which is a symptom of our national malady, and feeds the problem, but is not, in and of itself, the real issue.
You are presuming that you are all-knowing enough to know my intentions. You ain’t, friend.
Believe it or not, when I ask a question, it is to get an answer. It’s not a “tactic,” it’s not a ploy, it’s simply a question. Call me crazy, but that’s how I communicate – by figuring out what our common ground is and working out from there.
But in many (most) of my online discussions with conservatives (which is very different than real world conversations, by the way), we never get that far because they right away begin presuming ill will in honest questions.
Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar, fellas/gals.
BiW … don’t those core obligations deserve review as “circumstances on the ground” change? The Founding Fathers would not recognize the world in which we live today. They could not have possibly written a constitution that accounted for an evolving society both technologically and ethically and morally. That is why amendments were accommodated for.
I’ve said this before and I still suspect it is true. You confuse the Constitution with the Bible. The Constitution forms the pillars upon which an evolving complex legal system is built. It is not an end in and of itself.
R, you have missed the point from the first day you and I have discussed this issue.
It isn’t up to government to determine sua sponte which of its powers are no longer adequate to the task of governing and to simply usurp whatever authority it can present an excuse for needing.
That is not “We the people”, it is ‘We tell the people.”
That is not “consent of the governed”, it is “government consenting to its own actions.”
If there is a need for government have powers not granted to it, then make the case in a process that “We the People” participate in…the process built into government and deliberately bypassed by 80 years of progressive statism…its called “Amendment”, and we have a very clearly outlined process for accomplishing it. And if “We the People” say “NO.”, that doesn’t make us stupid, it doesn’t make us racists, and it doesn’t make us bigots. What it means is that we have considered the matter, and that we don’t think it is appropriate that the Federal government have that power. If we do not have that power to tell the federal government what powers it can and cannot lawfully exercise, then we do not have consent of the governed, and the very spirit of the American Political system is betrayed.
Elric … you are truly an hilarious comedy act. By calling us drones constantly, you are “dealing” with us. And why else do you come here? To see your values supported by others … mutual intellectual masturbation? Or do you do it cos because you know one or two “drones” are here for you to take pot shots at … really poor pot shots, but pot shots nonetheless.
You’re kinda silly dude.
Cathy, when you come to the defense of Elric with any other motive than pity, you have indeed already had too many glasses of wine. 😉 I hope your Labor Day was fun. The hammock time sounds restful. We sat outdoors today, caught up on books and magazines and watched the kids play.
It is inappropriate to try to reckon my motive for defending Elric. If I choose to agree with him on a point or two, I will. Believe me, pity had nothing to do with it.
Cut your projection crap if you want to be taken seriously. Then again, maybe you don’t want that…
Notice to G, BiW and Cathy, by constantly tacking Dan’s method of argument, you miss (intentionally or not) the opportunity to clarify your points.
I don’t need to ask a bunch of questions …. you guys love the Fed when they regulate what you want regulated and when it goes over your perceived line, you scream “UNCONSTITUTIONAL!” And heaven forbid a Democratic President goes over that line!!!
Guess what … I didn’t want my tax dollars spent killing our young boys and girls for 7 years in Iraq. I’m not sure where in the Constitution it said old George could do that. But if anyone had questioned the constitutionality of an undeclared war that killed 4000 brave men and women you guys would have screamed “traitor”.
I’m sorry folks … about 80% of this debate is based on perception and not empirical fact. However, BiW, you have inspired a blog post. I’ll probably write it in the next day or so. 😉
I don’t need to ask a bunch of questions …. you guys love the Fed when they regulate what you want regulated and when it goes over your perceived line, you scream “UNCONSTITUTIONAL!” And heaven forbid a Democratic President goes over that line!!!
R, you ignore the fact that the “perceived line” is very clearly drawn, and when faced with the situtation that isn’t clear, you side with the government, and we side with ourselves, which is only natural, since the government’s legitimacy is derived from our consent, not its own.
Guess what … I didn’t want my tax dollars spent killing our young boys and girls for 7 years in Iraq. I’m not sure where in the Constitution it said old George could do that. But if anyone had questioned the constitutionality of an undeclared war that killed 4000 brave men and women you guys would have screamed “traitor”.
No, I didn’t scream “traitor”. I did pointout the sad dual mindedness that said “we support the troops, but we are against everything they do.” That way some people didn’t see you adding your special ingredient to the meal, like when their counterparts a generation earlier spit on returning vets and called them babykillers, but it doesn’t mean that we, and more importantly they couldn’t taste it anyway.
You can argue with the result, but when the President, who is the C-i-C, per that annoying Constitution, and Congress agree that there is a threat to be confronted, as did happen, then those brave young men and women, who volunteered, and did not ask for your pity or secondguessing of their choices go to war. Now for all the brave talk from those democrats in Congress, NOT ONCE did I see a vote to bring those troops home. I saw Harry Reid, Dick Durban, and others talk about how the surge was a mistake, and how the war was already lost, but I didn’t see them spearheading a vote to end our participation in that conflict and bring the boys and girls back home.
My annoyance with some of Dan’s methods of debate are valid. Dan is not stupid. That is clear to me. But the behavior he employs in debate sometimes costs him, and us. And calling it a ‘constant’ attack is way overstated.
I’ll attempt to explain. From my view point, when Dan tries to find a point of agreement, it’s usually not just one point, but a long list of elements that take on the pattern of “well if this…. then you should agree to this, and this, and this….. Right?”
The annoyance I totally own is that somewhere in all that ‘then’ portion of the statement or question, I find myself saying — “no, no and no… and how do you, Dan, arrive at that conclusion…?”
And then if I try to take apart his logic and the points on which he hopes we agree, I’m spending a LOT of time trying to explain my views in tangents. Hey, maybe I don’t even want to spend the time talking about MY VIEW on that tangential issue. What the hey am I doing in all this part of a debate? Why am I answering and investing my time and energy? We were actually talking about this other thing anyway… not this topic Dan chose to introduce. This is a simplification of the scenario, but I’m trying to save words.
I will not speak for BiW or G. This is my explanation of the frustration I had. And I’m glad that BiW, our host, told Dan to stop it.
Cathy…
From my view point, when Dan tries to find a point of agreement, it’s usually not just one point, but a long list of elements that take on the pattern of “well if this…. then you should agree to this, and this, and this….. Right?”
Except that that has not happened in the real world. I have only asked the questions, seeking clarification to find out if we are truly starting from a similar position (for instance, that legislating behavior that causes harm to others is a reasonable starting point). I have not done this “long list of elements that take on the pattern…” That just has not happened in the real world on this blog.
IF you can demonstrate where that has happened, by all means, do so. But since you can’t, I’m calling you on it: You are flatly mistaken. I won’t call it a lie, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are just mistaken.
This is very true and unfortunate. On the other hand, when women play the same game as men (as they should) they must expect the same results …. in politics men throw lots of “poo” at each other. Women jump into that arena, then get ready for the poo.
We are unlikely to ever agree on Michele Bachmann. You see her as protecting your freedoms. I see her as a showboating and potentially dangerous voice in the political dialog.
One of McCaskill’s finest moments was during the summer of health care discontent in 2009. During a town hall, when she was hearing abusive language from the audience she said “you don’t trust me?” The crowd screamed back “NO!”. I felt bad for her but I felt it was one of her finest moments because she was trying her best to appeal to civility and honesty and trust … not to “don’t retreat, reload” …. or taking up arms against this “gangsta government”.
We are a very angry nation. Politicians who want to tap into that rage for political gain don’t impress me.
But politicians that ignore the rage do?
It wouldn’t occur to them to actually figure out why there is rage in the first place. They know better than we do, and therefore our resistance is born of stupidity, of racism, and of bigotry.
Did I forget one, R or HP?
But Ms. McCaskill, like you, misses the point. She works for us (or more specifically, the people in her district). When you solicit information, and ignore the answer, you aren’t doing what you’re doing for us, you’re doing what you’re doing for yourself. You don’t get to substitute your will for that of the people you serve when you’re a public servant. That is the conduct of a ruler, not a servant, and it shows how out of touch you are.
Business sucks the big one. For the past three years I’ve been a webinar producer. Finding clients is like pulling teeth … or maybe more honestly, after 24 years of working for a big corp, I’m just not that good at marketing.
About a month ago I launched a new offering … social media management. Still looking for customer #1 on that one.
I was saying to my wife earlier this evening that almost everyone whose work I read or who I see on TV gets paid for what they do. I’m at least as busy as many of them and hardly a dime. Very frustrating but hey … that’s life in the big city. I just gotta stick with it. That’s all. (Sh*t, I was reading an interview today with Lady Gaga. Maybe I should change my name to Mr. Googoo and walk around with a cone brazier?)
Truly sorry that your fledgling business is not doing well. We have friends all over the place who are unemployed, underemployed, frustrated in their present positions and looking honestly at their situation and realizing that right now there simply is no place to pursue… friends who are conservatives and libs.
Doesn’t feel good no matter what stance we all take politically. I truly hope the best for you.
I hate to pull a Dan on you but …. do you believe there is such a thing as a Federal crime vs a local crime? If the answer is yes then why is it a stretch to have a Federal Bureau of Investigation to handle federal law enforcement?
Now, honestly I’m not an FBI groupie so maybe if you tell me an example of over-reach on their part I might say … yeah, that seems a bit much.
R,
Who said that Bank Robbery and Kidnapping, to name two, were exclusively federal crimes with federal jurisdiction? Hint: It wasn’t the states.
I hate to pull a Dan on you but …. do you believe there is such a thing as a Federal crime vs a local crime? If the answer is yes then why is it a stretch to have a Federal Bureau of Investigation to handle federal law enforcement?
Um… In my book that^ is not a ‘Dan’ just sayin’
You had an honest clarifying question that was not difficult to address as is and respond to in a sentence or two. Clarity on both sides of the discussion and easy for us readers/lurkers to follow. No prob.
Washington DC: Islamists Alongside Code Pink’s Medea Benjamin Hold “Quds Day” Rally, Wave Hezbollah Flags, Blame 9/11 on da Joooos…
The 2 enemies of freedom islam and “liberalism” teaming up once again.
“We are unlikely to ever agree on Michele Bachmann. You see her as protecting your freedoms. I see her as a showboating and potentially dangerous voice in the political dialog.”
R, I would like to know why is a Bachman or a Palin an affront to feminism?
Oh snap! You’re actually going to make him defend the talking point?
Yeah, what the hell was I thinking?
“R, I would like to know why is a Bachman or a Palin an affront to feminism?”
Because they dont believe in killing a baby in the womb.
My wine drinking never altered my ability to think clearly and enjoy commenting here. And nothing you say about it, Rutherford, will change that. Throw a little poo at drinking and enjoying a glass or two of wine? Typical response from you. You continue to show your colors.
Lemme see, you watch a YouTube video and say to yourself, “Yea that Claire McCaskill gal is my kinda woman.” Fine. That’s your response to my challenge to you to first identify your values and principles and to share how Claire demonstrates them to a factor of ten better than Palin or Bachmann. I’ve been to town halls and candidate forums with Republican congressmen and candidates. I can tell you that at the ones I’ve attended there have been plenty of opposition who speak out to the congressmen/candidates with the congressmen/candidates being willing to listen and respond as best they can to the points & complaints made, and THANKING everyone for their complaints or points. That’s how to handle it — not how Claire ALWAYS handles her town halls in such a patronizing way.
As others here have responded, Claire deserved to be told NO WE DON’T TRUST YOU! If you consider that rude, too bad. At least her constituents were doing their civic duty and exercising free speech and were staying ON TOPIC — not throwing poo. Have you watched ALL her town halls? I’ve seen several vids. She is rude and patronizing to her constituents. Maybe you are so used to being talked to like that by people who work for us that you are comfy with that. I’m not. I have friends and family who live in Missouri who have been dealing with her, trying to contact her and getting NO response, and in their frustration they despise her.
Here is the one that really grinds me about Palin’s treatment. In the campaign for VP she took the position that drilling in ANWR Alaska would be a good way to help our economy and also work toward setting us on a road to energy independence, which many think is one of the most essential goals we should have. Grown up girl with an idea that she put out there, experience as an executive and knows the energy issues. So what do the libs spread on the internet? A snarky cartoon with Palin getting ‘drilled’ doggie style by McCain, both with smiles on their faces, and the heading is “Drill Baby Drill.” Yea. That’s throwing poo. Real grown up response we got from the libs. Gee wilikers, thanks bunchies. Classic Alinsky tactics. Similar to the “lipstick on a pig” comment too. Poo. Obama made snarky comments about her being the mayor of Wasilla and totally ignored that she was at the time the governor of the state of Alaska. You think that was not on purpose? Snarky and childish. The fact that she endured so much of this kind of snarky, filthy, hateful ridicule and still remains a lady with a brain and ideas, stays positive and patriotic about America, shows her to have more character in her little finger than Claire, who deserves to hear how her constituents feel about the ‘job’ she is doing on them.
Cathy,
He is trying Alinsky tactics with you.
Cathy,
Now you see why I dont engage the drones? Its futile. They are what they are. Its not worth the frustration. Just offering some friendly advice.
George Soros Says He Feels No Remorse For Collaborating With Nazis During WWII to Send His Fellow Jews to the Death Camps, Steal Their Property…
http://weaselzippers.us/2010/09/07/george-soros-says-he-feels-no-remorse-for-collaborating-with-nazis-during-wwii-to-send-his-fellow-jews-to-the-death-camps-steal-their-property/
The evil bastard funding the marxist agenda. Feel proud drones? This is your sugar daddy. And Cathy, this is exactly why I dont bother engaging these drones. They are enablers of evil.
Elric66:
I really do believe there are those liberals who actually think they are trying to do good/help the world. Rutherford is NOT one of them – he is obviously trying to destroy this country from within – we actually have a name for that.
Now, about Dan: sometimes he seems gullible enough to fall into that deluded catergory. Other times, like when he tries that “Don’t you just agree” tactic, I think he knows what he is doing.
I like to think there is hope for those who have been misled by the leaders of the liberal/progressive movement. For the others – no hope, no pity, no remorse, and definitely no quarter.
Agiledog,
After 18 months into this regime and you still support these demomarxists, you are beyond help. But I always give them a chance when new ones pop on. Once they start making excuses for them, blaming Bush or playing the race card, I drop them. Not worth the headache. But you do hear former drones call into talk radio shows regretting what they done. Fine. They were naive or stupid. Its what they do in 8 weeks that truly matter. In a way, I have to thank them. 2 years of total control really showed what these marxists for what they are…….marxist thugs.
You know what I’ve noticed lately about the libs – the level of desperation and vitriol. Even making accusation that Tex is double crossing Obama as payback, as if somehow Tex had the power and authority to do as much.
Consider how much they fret about the Tea Party and Sarah Palin on their blogs, rather than reckon about the unpopularity of Obama and his foreign and domestic programs
I might take their charges more seriously if they were really interested in serious discussion. But I’m not convinced they can handle the truth.
Rutherford, are you strong enough to point that high-powered perception at yourself (to use a too often quote)? 🙂
“I might take their charges more seriously if they were really interested in serious discussion. But I’m not convinced they can handle the truth.”
Then why bother engaging the drones?
A real heartwarming story on a girl who just won the freedom to stay here.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/09/07/runaway-christian-convert-ohio-gains-legal-residency/
Thanks Elric. A couple of sisters in my community were not so lucky. Muslim dad shot and killed both of them. There is an audio of the 911 call one of them made while she was dying.
Another Muslim father ran over his beautiful young daughter Arizona. She was in a coma for two weeks before she finally died. His excuse – she was too westernized.
<Consider how much they fret about the Tea Party and Sarah Palin on their blogs, rather than reckon about the unpopularity of Obama and his foreign and domestic programs
Liberal bloggers might continue to refuse to admit what is clear to the general public (70%+/- of folks these days are seeing and feeling his failures).
Some news & media personalities are coming around, and have begun making comments on their shows… I don’t watch or listen, but heard a montage of them on talk radio today.
Maybe that paycheck is talking to them.
Two questions about freedom for Dan and Rutherford:
Why is it, that if a conservative doesn’t like guns, he doesn’t own one, but a liberal, if he doesn’t like guns, tries to ban them for everyone? And which one is truely supporting everyone’s freedom?
Coulter recently posted a similar thought. To paraphrase, if it’s something liberals like, they seek to enact laws that require it. If it’s something liberals don’t like, they seek to enact laws to ban it.
Such is the liberal mentality. Government’s function is to control human behavior and outcome (as opposed to the opposite). This is why the Constitution is frequently so nettlesome to them and government intervention/intrusion the solution to every perceived malady.
And of course, this is why the NY mosque debate drives them nuts. Rutherford, for example, can barely handle the fact that the conservative consensus is that the legal right to build the mosque exists, but it is opposed from a moral and ethical standpoint. The tired refrain is as simple as “but they have the right, they have the right, so how dare you oppose?” Acknowledging the legal right sucks the life out of the debate because everything is viewed through the prism of government intrusion and control through legislation.
For fun, watch what happens when the next large scale tragedy occurs. The left will immediately and reflexively scream for the enactment of a law. Always. It’s all they know.
I don’t generally support gun bans. Reasonable restrictions, sure, but bans? No.
I support folk having the right to own guns for hunting, for instance. I support folk having the right to own guns for sport shooting, if that’s what they want.
I am opposed to folk being able to buy or build nuclear weapons, tanks, missiles and bombs, in general.
Reasonable regulation.
NOW, I have answered your question, will you answer mine? Why is it that, if a liberal dude doesn’t want to marry another dude, he doesn’t. BUT, if a conservative dude doesn’t want to marry a dude, he wants to ban marriage for every dude who wants to marry a dude?
And which one is truly supporting freedom?
Or, if they don’t want an abortion, they want to ban that procedure for everyone? Or, if they don’t want to smoke marijuana, they want to ban that for everyone?
Who is it that “screams for enactment of a law…”?
Both sides from where I sit, at least occasionally.
But what are the REASONS for implementing restrictions and regulations via law? That was what I was trying to get at a couple of days ago before life interrupted my blogging?
I say: Harm to others. That is/ought to be the general rule for restricting/regulating via law. And, to my way of thinking, that is what liberals tend towards moreso than more conservative types (although there certainly are the “ban twinkies” crowd amongst the liberals, as well as the “ban all guns…”)
Why do we wish to limit or put an end to mountain top removal? To offshore drilling? To too much pollution? To “pre-emptive” warring? Because of harm to others, to innocent bystanders.
Why is it that some (many? most?) conservatives wish to ban gay marriage? To ban drug usage? Cuz they don’t like it, because it’s against their religion, cuz they think they know what’s best?
Very little along the lines of legitimate (ie, harm to others) reasoning happening there, seems to me.
NOW, I have answered your question, will you answer mine? Why is it that, if a liberal dude doesn’t want to marry another dude, he doesn’t. BUT, if a conservative dude doesn’t want to marry a dude, he wants to ban marriage for every dude who wants to marry a dude?
I get your point. There is a difference. Keep in mind that until the Supreme Court of this nation did a willy-nilly and proclaimed that homosexuality was an alternative lifestyle, that it was illegal. In my lifetime. The highest court of our nation, part of the government got to change the circumstances of a relationship. Alternative lifestyle. Okay. So it’s an ALTERNATIVE LIFESTYLE. Alternative… different from what I do and to whom I’m in a relationship with. Okay. They got their way. Fine.
I’m sort of personally indifferent to the homosexual act, even though from my view of Scripture I see clearly that God declares it wrong and against his intended use of sex. I don’t care what two guys or two gals wanna do in the privacy of their domicile. I don’t even care if they wanna have a ceremony and invite friends and family for a CIVIL UNION.
But being in an alternative lifestyle and having the ability to be in a civil union isn’t good enough for them anymore. They want more.
My objection is that they are trying to CHANGE the MEANING of the WORD, MARRIAGE. For me it is another assault, and encroachment into our language and our culture. When I meet people and say “I’m married” I want that to have the same meaning that it had for me when I made a promise and got married to a man, and also this is the same meaning for the rest of the world throughout the history since the beginning of time.
Who do those few in the minority think they are to change our word and our language to suit them? What is wrong with civil union? Nothing is wrong with it. It is clear and is a word that has meaning for them. Why do they want our word? Think about that before you respond. I think they want to corrupt it and our lifestyle. I’m against it, and so is Obama. At least that is what he said when he was campaigning for the presidency.
Abortion takes a life.
Abortion takes the life of a human being formed in the womb. God has knowledge of all humans growing in the womb, which he is knitting together. Psalm 139: 13-16 is a beautiful proclamation that God is well aware what HE is bringing to full growth a human that can not yet fend for itself outside the womb. Who are we to mess with it? Little gods? Idolaters, making our own rules and defying God’s rules? Who speaks for that little girl or boy ripped from that womb?
Abortion ALSO was illegal and considered the taking of a life since the beginning of time in all civilized cultures. So again, the United States Supreme Court gets to change that… the act of taking the life of one that can not care for her or himself. Now it’s a ‘choice’ of the woman.
Talk with a man whose wife aborts his child without his say. See how that decent man who wanted to be a daddy feels about his dead child lost to him, a child who will never get a chance to grow up and have him for a daddy.
This is not about what I want. And abortion is not about the choice of a woman. Again, throughout the history of the world up to our present age, when a man and a woman choose to have sex with one another they understand the possibility that they will form a life. That is where the choice takes place… whether to have that sex (unprotected). What is wrong with that? Nothing. That is a reality that is easy to comprehend for anyone.
This is another situation where our government has used it’s unconstitutional bully power to legislate morality and decency by changing the meaning of words. That is not their call, authority, or power. They are supposed to evaluate the facts in the cases and apply the rule of law to those facts and assess a decision — that is what the word “judge” means. Instead, they legislate.
When will it stop? That should be the question we all consider. Anyone of us could be the next target for constitutional abuses that violate our right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (wealth).
Lawlessness. Consider the word and what is happening in our nation.
Q: “ban gay marriage?”
A: Personally, I couldn’t care less. Gay marriage, however, is not currently a secured right; it hasn’t been from the inception of marriage. It’s the left that wants to change the status quo. Anyway,when did the left “encourage” gay marriage?
Q: “To ban drug usage?”
A: Oh, I see — you’re trying to fit this into your “if it doesn’t hurt anybody than it should be legal” analysis. Of course, without parsing what you mean by “drug use,” the left has certainly worked towards legalizing it in many areas. Funny how I can’t have a cigarrette anywhere in NY and S.F., regardless of the bar owner’s preference. Anyway, let me know when the left is “in favor” of drug use, and I’ll show you a bill that officially requires that the government supply it to anyone fitting its criteria for “deserving.”‘ To my point, when did the left officially “encourage” drug use?
Q: “Cuz they don’t like it, because it’s against their religion[?]”
A: I guess it depends on your religion. It’s acceptable for the goevrnment to prvode grants to artists to display the Virgin Mary being defecated on or covered in soiled tampons. That of course is “freedom of expression” (which means government funded). I dare you to do the same to a statue of Rosa Parks! Anyway, your concept of government is your religion, to defile it to the left is hate speech. We have laws against that, you know? People have convictions reflected in their religious beliefs (or vice versa). Yep. I thought hat was the left’s argument in favor of the mosque. Religious freedom. It was Nancy Pelosi that wanted to investigate the opposition, remember?
Q: Cuz they think they know what’s best[?]
A: Damn skippy.
Indeed, very “little along the lines of legitimate (ie, harm to others) reasoning happening here.” I especially like abortion not being a harm to others. Priceless.
Cathy,
You lived by Amina and Sarah?
Yes.
Agile,
How about this. How would the drones like it if the Government required them to own a gun?
Cathy,
Since you live there, have you heard anything on the father? They find him or know where the dirtbag is?
I dunno. I should clarify I heard all about this when we moved here a couple of years ago.
My experience with abusive Muslim fathers/husbands has me convinced that when they kill, their network and money get them away from prosecution. I know several Muslim wives personally. One abused wife told me how her husband who beat her regularly (she always had bruises on her legs and had to wear pants or long skirts all the time) threatened her saying he would kill her and get away with it because of his money and network.
Cathy,
Last I heard is they think he fled to Egypt. The mother should have been charged as an accomplice.
Yea, about the mom… I don’t have an opinion. It’s a tough call. She might have been the victim of intimidation and abuse also. Maybe she was an accomplice, but charging her and putting her in prison isn’t going to get at the root of the problem. But I must say I have not looked at the details. I’m only processing what I know about other situations in which I have some private details. In my work (now retired) I knew of women and daughters killed by abusive fathers/husbands. Other women I know have gotten their jaws, noses, and ribs broken.
One gal married the man of her dreams until she got pregnant. She almost lost the baby a few times, and when she was nursing, he would beat her up. There is a known sickness in some men who don’t want to share the affection with the baby. Very sick dudes. And the creepiest part of all of this is that statistics show that women are less safe after they leave their abuser. I learned that before OJ Simpson was busy out there stalking his ex and her boyfriend.
One of my friends who was married to a Muslim was lucky enough to be an American citizen with an influential wealthy family that protected her. She got away with her two kids, got safe, and divorced the fella who was abusing her. He was a coke addict, so that helped her case and kept him away from their small children at least for awhile.
Some women are not as lucky because they have no network and few friends outside their Muslim culture, so they don’t know whom they can trust. It’s sad.
And once they get their marriage, polygamy will start to be pushed.
Cathy,
I heard she was the one that convinced the girls to come back.
Oooooo Dog … call the FBI while you can before I destroy our country from within! 👿
Oh yeah, I forgot … you guys think the FBI is an example of government over reach.
I need to stop picking on Elric because he is not alone in the wacky department. 🙄
Thanks Cathy. I appreciate the kind words.
*claps*
Cathy and El Tigre manage to nail it down very well.
I’d only add that with regard to gay “marriage”, that changing CENTURIES of law to alter a definition to make the term cover something that it never did, based on specious reasoning that boils down to “because we wanna” is not a good enough reason.
I don’t know if you are familiar with Lord Blackstone, but his work embodied the law we brought from Britain and retained with our independence.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/blackstone.asp
Book one, Chapter 15 might help you to understand a little better.
And you actually defend the legality of abortion? Liberal legal scholars have real problems with how Roe was decided, because even they realized that just making it up and declaring it so is a trick that is capable of repetition.
Using your own set of rules, both harm others. So what is you example supposed to mean again Dan because like so much you post, it appears contradictory and nonsensical.
Abortion in all circumstances terminates a human life. That is why it’s called “ABORT”ion. The sale of weed through Mexican cartels kills both Mexicans and American law enforcement. Ask anybody living on the border about the sale of dope and they will give you specific examples of how deadly it is.
1. Okay, so El Tigre asked a leading question (what does Dan think about banning guns?) which I answered. The implication in Tigre’s question was that liberals like going around banning stuff they don’t like. I demonstrated that, at least in my case, that is not the situation.
2. I followed up with the question, “Why do conservatives like running around banning stuff?” The implication being that both conservatives and liberals do this from time to time, but what is the REASONING behind banning stuff? Is there a legitimate reason to ban (regulate/restrict) actions and what is that reasoning?
Your answers?
First off, you jump on abortion. In that case, you might have a point that some harm to others is done (that is, you AGREE with me that at least one measure ought to be, “Is harm done to others?”) So, FOR THE MOMENT, let’s presume you’re correct on abortion and that harm is done to others and you conservatives might have a case ON THAT POINT. (I’ll come back to that later, but let’s give it to you for now.)
But what of all the other examples? Drug usage? Gay marriage? You gave no consistent, logical reason other than, “It’s what I think is right…” That is, you said, “In my opinion, it would change the meaning of the word marriage…” or, “it’s been illegal, why change it?” But these are not consistent, sound logical reasons for implementing laws.
So, I return to my question (the one that El Tigre asked indirectly): What is your ethical grounds for thinking an action should be restricted/regulated/banned? Do you have any consistent reasoning and, if so, what is it?
El Tigre said…
Anyway, let me know when the left is “in favor” of drug use, and I’ll show you a bill that officially requires that the government supply it to anyone fitting its criteria for “deserving.”‘ To my point, when did the left officially “encourage” drug use?
I’m not sure of your point, Tigre. MY point is that we do well to consider criminalizing behavior when it causes harm to others. It’s not that liberals in general are “in favor” of drug use (I’m a tea-totalling, non-smoking Baptist boy, myself, who finds drug usage pretty pointless, in general). I’m just saying that if someone wishes to smoke (pot, tobacco, newspaper…) or drink alcohol or otherwise ingest drugs in their own home or backyard, where they’re not posing a harm to others, then it’s not really any of gov’t’s business to step in.
The measure being the fairly consistent, “Does it cause unjust harm to others?” If a behavior DOES potentially cause harm (drunk driving, second hand smoke, auto fumes, factory toxins) then we have a legitimate grounds for considering restricting/regulating it. If not, we don’t.
What is your consistent, logically sound grounds for implementing laws? Something besides “it’s how we’ve always done it…” or “cuz I don’t like it when they do that…”?
I think Rutherford raised a decent point/question earlier when he said (speaking of my efforts to find common ground)…
He attempts to establish some definitions that we all can agree on before proceeding. The reason you dislike this approach is that you don’t WANT to agree with anything Dan says … and his tactic forces you to.
I would THINK that we could all agree that legislating actions that might cause unjust harm to others would be a good starting point as to what ethical grounds do we have for creating law. But, as often as I’ve asked the question, it remains unanswered, so far as I can tell. Why would you not answer this simple question?
Because there are caveats, perhaps? Well, sure, there are caveats. That’s why I keep using language like, “AS A GENERAL RULE, if an action causes unjust harm to others, that is a legitimate reason to CONSIDER legislation…” IF we could agree on this general rule, then we could move on to what those caveats might be. But some conservatives seem loathe to say, “Yes, Dan, that is a reasonable general rule” or words to that effect.
IF we can agree on that general rule, we can consider, “What constitutes ‘harm?’ How much harm must be considered ‘too much’? Does intent matter…?” questions to those ends.
And with that, I’m out of time, gotsta go to work. More to come, including more on abortion…
Peace out.
Trumka: “Without Nancy Pelosi health care wouldn’t have happened…We stuck together and we got a historic victory and drove it down the Republican’s throat and out their backsides”
“Freedom”
Is there an imposter here?
Dan says, “El Tigre asked a leading question (what does Dan think about banning guns?)”
No I didn’t. The question was posed by Agiledog. I answered it.
As for the balance of what you said, what the hell are you smoking?
Dan, your style is most irritating. Your summaries of everything I wrote, literally and contextually, are asinine. I am not going to spend the time correcting them. You’re not interested in honest debate.
I initially thought your approach was innocent, but as everyone else here knows, it’s not. That includes Rutherford who, in his efforts to defend you, won’t admit the time trying to correct or clarify is wasted because you will simply repeat the child-like process anew.
El Tigre,
You learn your lesson yet?
I have now. The cherry is the obvious self-satisfaction with it all.
Islam will sooner or later dominate Europe: Italian priest
London, Sep 8 : Christians in Europe must have more children or else the continent would become Islamised, said a Vatican official who predicted that Islam would ‘sooner rather than later conquer the majority in Europe’.
Italian Father Piero Gheddo said the poor birth rate among Europeans coupled with waves of Muslim immigrants could lead to Europe getting dominated by Islam.
http://www.newkerala.com/news2/fullnews-37291.html
“Freedom”
Hartford City Council Meetings to Begin With Islamic Prayers as “an act of Solidarity With our Muslim Brothers and Sisters” Over Ground Zero Mosque Controversy
http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local-beat/Council-Meetings-to-Begin-with-Muslim-Prayers-102387499.html
I bet one drone here is a member. Notice how these anti-religious leftists have a soft spot for islam? Maybe because islam is anti-freedom.
Tigre…
Dan, your style is most irritating. Your summaries of everything I wrote, literally and contextually, are asinine.
First, apologies to mis-crediting the question about gun bans to you. Just a mistake. No harm, no foul.
Second, I am sorry you find my “style” irritating. Perhaps someday, you might want to enumerate what exactly you find irritating so that I might learn from your opinions.
Third, I don’t know what you are talking about, my “summaries??” I didn’t summarize what you wrote. I just didn’t.
I QUOTED what you wrote and then said, I quote…
I’m not sure of your point, Tigre. MY point is that we do well to consider criminalizing behavior when it causes harm to others. It’s not that liberals in general are “in favor” of drug use (I’m a tea-totalling, non-smoking Baptist boy, myself, who finds drug usage pretty pointless, in general). I’m just saying that if someone wishes to smoke (pot, tobacco, newspaper…) or drink alcohol or otherwise ingest drugs in their own home or backyard, where they’re not posing a harm to others, then it’s not really any of gov’t’s business to step in.
That is NOT a summary of ANYTHING you wrote. It is my opinion.
Just taking a guess here, but PERHAPS you find my “style” irritating because you are seeing things that aren’t there? Where exactly is it you think I summarized your positions?
And the question (relatively simple question, it seems to me) remains open: Can we agree that, as a starting point, the question of whether or not unjust harm is inflicted upon others is a legitimate reason to consider legislation?
Didn’t summarize?
( e.g. “Drug usage? Gay marriage? You gave no consistent, logical reason other than, “It’s what I think is right…” That is, you said, “In my opinion, it would change the meaning of the word marriage…” or, “it’s been illegal, why change it?”; “So, I return to my question (the one that El Tigre asked indirectly): What is your ethical grounds for thinking an action should be restricted/regulated/banned?”).
Can we agree that conservatives didn’t create marriage, so your commentary doesn’t address the point?
Can we agree that disfavor of drug usage is not exclusive to conservatives, so your commentary about it doesn’t apply?
Can we agree that I made in reliance on generalities is not defeated by saying, “I demonstrated that, at least in my case, that is not the situation?”
Can we agree not to use half-sequiturs to distort an argument (e.g. “Can we agree that all dogs have tails? And we agree that cats have tails, right? Great. So we’re in agreement that all cats are dogs”)?
Can we agree that re-framing your own and everyone else’s points as you move along is annoying?
Can we agree that I was expressing an “ending point” not a search for a “starting point?”
Dan, can we agree that it’s time for you to cut the shit?
Tigre, you realize, don’t you, that there are other folk involved in this conversation besides you and I? And THOSE folk offered no grounds for laws other than “it’s the way it’s been,” and “cuz.”
As far as I can tell, you haven’t offered ANY ethical grounds for supporting legislation, so, no, in fact, I have not summarized your position. I HAVE summarized others’ positions.
Sorry if you misunderstood.
Yeah. Whatever.
Dick, can I borrow that bat?
**Tweet**
Baloney Penalty!!! 15 yards and loss of down! 4th and 30.
NO, DAN. If you paid attention to the entire conversation, the argument is much more than “that’s the way it’s been” and “Cuz”.
The argument is that laws exist for a reason, and that you do not change those laws based on the whims of a judge or a panel of judges, because the court’s role is not to discover new law in the penumbras and eminations of laws that have existed and are plainly stated. Making law is the role of the legislature, and is arrived at through the legislative process, which in some states includes referendum. “Discovering” law, or finding something completely new in something already existing is what we call in the legal business “making shit up.”, and it is an offense to ordered liberty and the legislative process.
“Discovering” that a right to privacy, that exists in the penumbras and eminations of the Bill of Rights, trumps the right of those who cannot speak in their own defense to continue living, as happened in Roe, is making shit up, as it ignores the principals so clearly set forth in the nation’s charter…the right to life. It was also a breathtaking usurpation of the authority of the states to make laws preserving the health, saftey and welfare of their own citizens by federalizing something that previous to Roe had never been within the purview of the Federal Government. It is a little like leaving for work one morning and returning home in the evening to find that the big box store next door had expanded its parking lot over half your lot, and even knocked down half of your home in the process, only to have their representative say “Quit complaining. Our deed actually included your property too, you just have to read between the lines.”
As for discovering a right to gay marriage, it only requires the intrepid discoverers to labor the Equal Protection Clause to the point where it is treated like its always on duty a Subic Bay whorehouse with the fleet being perpetually in. And then it also takes a Judge with an agenda to deconstruct the term and strip it away from all meaning and context it has been given over the centuries before making like its the Six Million Dollar Man…something to be rebuilt, stronger, faster, better, at least in the narrowly focused eyes of Judge Frankenstein.
https://threesurethingsoflife.wordpress.com/2010/08/17/sophistry-myopia-and-obsession-proposition-8-litigation-and-studies-in-legal-alchemy/
It discovers a law that does not exist, in order to conveniently trump a law legitimately arrived at. Of course, with the real issue being a drive to wrest society’s sanction from it for their conduct, I can only wonder what the next “accomodation” is to be demanded from the rest of society when homosexuals realize that taking this from us still won’t make them feel any better about themselves or what they are doing.
So yes, Dan, you got a much more complete answer than what you claim.
So sorry if you misunderstood.
El Tigre,
Once you realize its impossible to have a real conversation, its more satisfying to mock them.
Cathy: From my view point, when Dan tries to find a point of agreement, it’s usually not just one point, but a long list of elements that take on the pattern of “well if this…. then you should agree to this, and this, and this….. Right?”
Dan: Except that that has not happened in the real world…
Dan, you continue to express yourself in such arrogant ways. Note that I started my point with the phrase”from my point of view” and yet you need to instruct me on the REAL WORLD? GMAFB! I feel for your family to have to put up with you, REALLY!
Here it goes…
HERE IS DAN, BATTERING THE BLOG, AND US, WITH ANNOYING, LONG CONNECTED STATEMENTS, WITH MOST OF THEM FINISHING WITH A HOOK QUESTION. SORRY TO TORTURE ALL YOU FOLKS.
I think commitment and fidelity are good things. Because I believe thusly, and because I know of no good reason (biblical, logical, moral) NOT to, I support marriage for any rational, free-willed adults. Gay or straight….. So, while “gay marriage” is something of a liberal and libertarian issue, I hold my position … Is that a “liberal” or a “conservative” position? Both. Neither… Which is not to say that I necessarily want to… …so do those examples work for you?
WHAT ? WORK FOR ME? Where do we start?
If the Bible is silent on the issue, then the Bible is silent on an issue. That was my only point. Oftentimes (actually, nearly universally) when I point that out to more conservative Christians, they’ll respond as you have: “So, since the bible is silent on an issue, that means it’s okay?!!” No, I did not say that. I just think it unwise to presume to speak for God, especially when the Bible is silent on an issue. In the lack of a specific word from God, we must use our God-given reasoning to consider a point. Is this a good thing? Does it promote healthy living? Godly living? Is it harmful? These sorts of questions ought to be considered. Marriage (gay or straight) is a good thing in my book. Fidelity, commitment, family, love, support, these are all good things. I see nothing harmful in marriage (gay or straight) when it’s healthy and loving and therefore, I support it. I believe that NAMBLA is that man-boy/pedophile group? That would be an instance of NOT healthy, because children aren’t in a position to make up their minds about sexuality and I don’t advocate adults taking advantage of children or animals. So, since that falls into the unhealthy category, I don’t support it, even though NAMBLA itself is not mentioned in the Bible. Simple concept: IS there harm or not? Is it healthy and wholesome or not? Do you find that unreasonable?
DO I FIND WHAT UNREASONABLE? ANYTHING IN HERE? EVERYTHING? WHERE DO WE START?
I don’t think that word means what you think it means… Is eating shrimp an abomination? According to the KJV, yes. As is polyester. It’s a cultural taboo. “These things are what the surrounding pagans do,” God was saying. “They are not for you, you are to be different,” God said to Israel. But these taboos weren’t universal and forever wrongs, just cultural taboos. You DO eat shrimp, don’t you? Or at the least, you don’t condemn it, do you?
WHAT IS THE POINT HERE? IS THERE A QUESTION ANYONE CAN RESPOND TO?
Well, as you may or may not remember, it HAS occurred to me, since that’s the way I used to believe. Before further biblical study and prayer led me to a different conclusion. But, since I don’t think “the homosexual act” is any more wrong than the “heterosexual act,” and since God has not stated that to me or anyone else, and since I DO think marriage, commitment, fidelity, etc, are all good things, I no longer agree with your conclusion. But you’re welcome to it. You don’t want to marry a guy? No one’s going to force you. I hope that’s okay with you, but even if not, we all must seek to strive to find the Good as best we can. You can decide what you believe is most righteous and the rest of us will decide what WE think is most righteous. Of course, you or I or both of us could be mistaken, but we are obliged to strive to figure that out nonetheless.
THERE’S A QUESTION IN THERE SOMEWHERE. THERE’S PLENTY TO ADDRESS. WHERE TO START. WHY BOTHER?
I don’t deny that twice in the OT and once in the NT you find condemnation of SOME form of homosexual activity, just as you find MULTIPLE condemnations of some form of heterosexual behavior. But that is not a condemnation of ALL gay behavior any more than it is a condemnation of all straight behavior. Right?
RIGHT WHAT?
It is my conclusion that marriage is a good thing because fidelity, commitment, companionship and family are all good things, gay or straight. THAT is my reasoning. So, with my actual reasoning for supporting marriage (gay or straight), do you have a problem with any of those? That is, are you coming out against fidelity if it’s fidelity between two guys? Are you coming out against companionship if it’s companionship between two gals? Put another way, Paul says that it is better to marry than burn in lust (ie, to be miserable because you are alone and companion-less with no morally acceptable way to vent your God-given sexual longings.) Marriage, most of us have decided, is a good and wholesome way of having all of that. I’m saying that the very things that make marriage a good thing for straight folk ALSO makes it a good thing for gay folk. Yes? No? Why not?
WHA…?
And so, I have demonstrated by Scripture where Tex made a mistake With his take on “abomination,” and no one has responded to the specific correction. Just called me a fake and move on, with NO support for the charge. How about it? Let’s just take one bit of Bible study and one bit of this discussion at a time? Tex suggested that gay marriage is wrong because “men laying with men” is an abomination. I point out that the actual Hebrew word, Toevah, does not mean what he is suggesting. That it’s just a cultural taboo. I pointed out that eating shrimp is ALSO listed as an abomination in the Bible, and yet that Tex and y’all probably spend no time decrying all the lobster-eaters out there, and in fact, you may well engage in that abomination yourselves? A little truth-telling time: Do you engage in the abomination of eating shrimp or lobster? Even if not, I’m guessing you don’t think it’s sinful. Why is that abomination not sinful, but “men laying with men” is? Come, let us reason: Let’s just deal with this one issue. No ad homs, no demonizations. Just address the point. Tex suggested that gay marriage = bad because it is an abomination. I clarified the meaning of the word used. I pointed out that shrimp-eating is also called an abomination. Dealing with the texts and not Dan, what is your reply? Or is there nothing but the ad homs to your position?
DAN HAD NOT (REPEAT – HAD NOT!) DEMONSTRATED THAT TEX MADE A MISTAKE. THEN DAN BATTERS US WITH THESE WORDS ABOVE, AND THEN DAN ACCUSES US OF NOT RESPONDING. THERE IS MORE, BUT I’VE TORTURED MYSELF (MAYBE OTHERS) LONG ENOUGH.
How could a pie-lovin’ woman like yourself torture us like that? It’s like an awful recurring nightmare.
Hawking has it right. Dan is proof there is no god.
Hahahaha! Sorry, El Tigre.
This pie-making wimmin has had enough self-torture, so you and the other good folk here are in luck today.
I think that’s worth a pie all to myself.
One I don’t have to share with DiT.
Or Michael.
😉
*proposal being considered*
Texas Pecan?
So, Cathy, are you saying that the problem is, you can’t follow a multi-part question that lasts more than one sentence? If you’d like, pick any one of those comments and I can explain it to you more slowly, using smaller words, if you’d like.
gee…
Your examples, aren’t.
When I ask a question (as in your examples) it is to clarify a certain point. When I said, for instance…
I don’t support it, even though NAMBLA itself is not mentioned in the Bible. Simple concept: IS there harm or not? Is it healthy and wholesome or not? Do you find that unreasonable?
I meant (follow along, now):
1. I don’t support pedophilia. (Clear enough or do I need to spell that out further?)
2. I don’t support pedophilia because there is harm to an innocent (as we’re speaking of in this conversation). Clear enough or do I need to spell that out for you further.
3. I then ask, do you find that reasonable? That is, do you find it reasonable to oppose behavior that causes harm?
Does that make sense? If not, then the way rational adults handle conversations is they ask a question in response (“Dan, I don’t know what you mean by “causes harm,” could you elaborate…?”), not presume that I’m trying to “trick you” with “questions.”
When Tigre made a statement that I did not understand, I said so. I said, “I’m not sure of your point, Tigre. MY point is that we do well to consider criminalizing behavior when it…” and went on to explain my point, to allow time for him to explain what in the world he was trying to say and to further explain my position.
There’s no harm in saying, “I don’t know what you mean, could you explain?”
It certainly makes more sense than just responding, “ugh, he’s a wolf in sheep’s clothing, he’s a commie, he’s a boogetyman, he’s a drone…”
Dan,
Really. This isn’t complicated.
We aren’t interested in discussing the questions that were not posed. I’m sure we could find much more to be discussed with the expression of opinions on the matters actually discussed. Clarification isn’t really necessary. If you misunderstood, you’d know it soon enough. Reframing isn’t necessary. I expressed my thoughts very clearly. We don’t need to go through the exercise of sounding out the words when the essay is right in front of you. It adds nothing of value to the conversation, because instead of a discussion on topic, we get everyone pissed off at the guy who wants everyone to read aloud from the McGuffy Reader when we all have the college level assigned reading in front of us.
*proposal being considered*
Texas Pecan?
Ma’am, I was just kidding. As delicious as your pie is (I’m going from DiT’s endorsement), I don’t need a whole one to myself, and I wouldn’t want to miss the fun of a DaveinPool moment over the last slice. 😉
Dan. It appears to me that you seem to be assuming that any of us WANT to keep talking to you about your tangents.
I understand everything just fine. You don’t need to keep saying shit like “YOU can’t follow…” or how you demonstrated that somebody else makes a mistake. What kind of attitude in a person talks like that? And then you accuse others of calling you a ‘wolf in sheep’s clothing’ or ‘drone’ or ‘arrogant’ or whatever.
The longer I observe your comments, the more convinced I am that you ARE a wolf in sheep’s clothing, an arrogant person comfortable with battering others with multi-part questions, points, and language — and many of them include your versions of snide remarks.
I can CHOOSE when to participate and when to follow into your lair. That is exactly the point I was making. You are not educated enough or kind enough or skilled enough to be my teacher on anything. You darken my counsel. I get to choose who instructs and counsels me and so does everyone else here at whatever level they choose. You are not in control. This blog is not about you.
I am that you ARE a wolf in sheep’s clothing, an arrogant person comfortable with battering others with multi-part questions, points, and language
That IS pretty cowardly and mean of me, I reckon. “Battering” you by asking multi-part questions and making points and using language.
I apologize.
[rolls eyes…]
(And for the record, I DO know that these last two comments of mine have been snarky, deliberately so. After the ton of snark and worse from your “side,” are you now saying it is inappropriate?)
And Dan, it’s a metacognizant comedy to see you instructing me or others on how to converse with you.
You alter the way you communicate and do it consistently for a period of time showing restraint in your accusations, snide remarks, and arrogance, to show how you wish to be treated and communicated with and maybe you will see a change in me and others.
But Cathy, he told you his mode of discourse is superior to yours. Weren’t you listening?
If he could only break it down into simpler concepts and support them with more self-aggrandizing assurances. . .
You ever try your hand a Mississippi Mud pie?
Cathy, on a serious note: Prior to these last two comments from me, where do you think I’ve been arrogant or snide or otherwise rude?
From my point of view, I’ve been exceedingly polite and respectful with nary an intentionally snide comment made.
And here I’ve promised to try to avoid paying attention to the ad homs…
Notice that the “president” is for the Ground Zero mosque and against the qur’an burning. Almost like he favors…….islam.
POLITICAL INSIDER: GOP voters outnumber Dems
By PHILIP ELLIOTT (AP) – 11 hours ago
WASHINGTON — Looking for yet another sign Democrats are in trouble? Take note of who is showing up to vote in the primaries.
For the first time since 1930, Republican votes for statewide offices are outnumbering Democratic votes, according to an analysis from American University’s Center for the Study of the American Electorate. And Republicans, eager to campaign against Democrats who control the House, Senate and White House, are casting primary ballots at the highest rate since 1970.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jrFPllkin8kzcFBD_CoiK1ztd7IgD9I3JDLO0
Suck it drones.
Poor drone just beggin’ for attention. LOL
…where do you think I’ve been arrogant or snide or otherwise rude?
Not gonna take the bait this time. If you are truly interested in gaining some self-knowledge, then you can take the definition of arrogance and simply comb through the last few week’s of blog posts here and read how you are coming across. You can either see clearly what you are communicating and employ some of your own self-criticism, OR you can read the responses and ‘name calling’ that others have said as a response to your attitude and words and render how what you had said previous to their comments just might have come across to them.
Looking in the mirror is tough work. This is your life and your homework. I’ve no need to be needed this way.
AND — just in case Rutherford is lurking *snigger* I’m making it real clear here that I HAVE NO NEED TO HEAR ABOUT YOUR RESPONSES. It’s TMI = TOO MUCH INFORMATION! …as far as I’m concerned.
ARROGANT: 1. proudly contemptuous: feeling or showing self-importance and contempt or disregard for others
Synonyms: conceited, haughty, egotistic, bigheaded, superior, proud, overconfident, supercilious, self-important
2010: U.S. Military Condemns Plan to Burn the Koran. 2009: Had No Problem Burning Bibles it “Confiscated” in Afghanistan…
http://weaselzippers.us/2010/09/08/2010-u-s-military-condemns-plan-to-burn-the-koran-2009-had-no-problem-burning-bibles-it-confiscated-in-afghanistan/
Hmmmmm…might have something to do with having a muslim “president”.
First, this piece of crap response:
“I don’t generally support gun bans. Reasonable restrictions, sure, but bans? No.
I support folk having the right to own guns for hunting, for instance. I support folk having the right to own guns for sport shooting, if that’s what they want.
I am opposed to folk being able to buy or build nuclear weapons, tanks, missiles and bombs, in general.
Reasonable regulation.”
Reasonable to whom? A pacifist like you? Blah! I see you didn’t mention support for the right to own a gun for the reason the Constitution allows it – defense of liberty and freedom (there’s that pesky word Freedom again).
Gun control: the theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose is somehow morally superior to the woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound.
And you would ban the weapons of war, huh? Tell me, just how do you think you are gonna get the Chinese to comply with that? By appealing to their Christianity? 🙂
So you gave me a cow pie of an answer, but I’ll answer your silly question:
“Why is it that, if a liberal dude doesn’t want to marry another dude, he doesn’t. BUT, if a conservative dude doesn’t want to marry a dude, he wants to ban marriage for every dude who wants to marry a dude?”
Because the conservative “dude” understands that the term “marriage” refers to the concept of a union between a man and a woman, and that to apply that term to another form of union is illogical, destructive of language, and wrong. As someone said above: All cats have tails. All dogs have tails. Therefore all cats are dogs. Uh, No – just because two different things have some common traits, it doesn’t make them equal or the same.
Note that conservatives do not want to ban the union of two man, they just oppose anyone trying to call that union a marriage. I understand that there are people who oppose same-sex unions on religous grounds – I can’t speak to that.
Agiledog, your original comment/question to me…
Why is it, that if a conservative doesn’t like guns, he doesn’t own one, but a liberal, if he doesn’t like guns, tries to ban them for everyone?
I answered: I DON’T want to ban them for everyone. I AGREE with you on that point.
And yet, agreeing with you isn’t enough, apparently. It’s still a “piece of crap” response. So be it. The position that Dan and AgileDog hold is apparently a “piece of crap.”
At least we’re in it together, pal.
AD:
And you would ban the weapons of war, huh?
You were asking if I would ban guns for everyone. I would not. I AM for reasonable regulation for everyone. So, that means I do NOT support Joe or Wanda or Bob being able to go buy a tank or a nuclear missile.
That is not to say that I would “ban” the military from weapons. I did not say that, you were asking about personal individual weaponry and I’m for reasonable regulations for personal individual weaponry.
I hesitate to ask it (I see that asking questions is frowned upon here), but, do you agree that we don’t want individuals to own nukes, tanks, missiles, bombs? Do you agree that we don’t want criminals to be able to purchase weapons? Do you agree that SOME limitation on individual weaponry is reasonable?
I suspect you do, but forgive me for saying so if that is offensive.
Note that conservatives do not want to ban the union of two man, they just oppose anyone trying to call that union a marriage.
Why? “Marriage” meaning the union of two people, does not belong to the church, or to the gov’t. What if we want to call marriage between gay folk “Holy Matrimony” – do you all have sole rights to that term, as well?
As far as the state is concerned, marriage is a legal document between two people. It doesn’t matter if they’re of two different races or the same (although that WAS the law for many years – tradition isn’t always right), nor does the state of have any reason to consider it differently if it’s between two folks of the same gender.
Again: What is your grounds for opposing legal marriage between gay folk and wanting to disallow it by weight of law? Where is the harm to others? Or, if you don’t think that’s a reasonable starting point: ON WHAT BASIS would you create laws to implement your wishes on others who may not agree with your hunches?
I understand that YOUR FEELINGS on the matter is that “it’s not a marriage” unless it’s male/female, but we need something more than feelings, in my opinion, to ethically support legislation.
My first comment on this blog, in response to BiW’s comment…
A moment when Americans volunteered their blood, their money, and for some, their lives.
I said…
Yes, Americans and people around the world rallied behind us. Christians around the world, Jews around the world, Muslims around the world, atheists around the world… ALL rallied behind us. Muslim Americans gave blood, I’m sure, to the cause, right alongside Christians, Jews and atheists.
What reason would we have for not allowing these folk to build this building? Are they criminals? Are they breaking codes? Are they trying to build illegally or using stolen money?
I pointed out that people around the world and from every religion supported us. I asked what I think are reasonable questions.
Proud? Arrogant? I don’t see how that could be taken that way.
From there, I kept asking questions about what valid reasons are there for opposing this mosque, pointing out that the people wanting to build it weren’t responsible for the bombing, pointing out that Muslims in general aren’t responsible for the bombing and that it is wrong to condemn a whole group for the actions of a few.
My comments were respectful, did not use curse words or cast aspersions upon those who disagreed with me. In response, I was cursed at and had aspersions cast upon me.
And on it went. So, you’ll have to beg my pardon if I don’t find your hurt feelings to be based upon anything valid if you can’t point to ONE SINGLE thing I’ve done to come across as arrogant.
Forgive this opinion, but from where I sit, it SOUNDS like you all misinterpret polite disagreement with some debate trick and arrogance. Could it be possible that you all are so jaded that you see arrogance where there is none and find “summaries” of opinions where there were none?
It sounds like, to me, that you all don’t know how to handle polite disagreement with anything but attacks and arrogant presumption of your own (presuming to speak for me, presuming to know what I think, what I intend, over and over).
Is it possible? Is it possible you’re projecting a little of your own issues?
Beyond that, I’d find your complaints of being offended by my supposed arrogance more believable if you criticized everyone for arrogance who is expressing opinions in a much more disrespectful way than I have.
Okay, going back to ignoring the ad homs and seeing if anyone wants to tackle some meaty issues instead…
Dan, I marvel at your ability to continue typing without an epiphany. Your self-awareness rivals that of the first-run American Idol rejects.
“What reason would we have for not allowing these folk to build this building?”
Wouldnt matter to you drones the background behind the group so why bring it up moron?
Agiledog,
You really want to expose the drone for the radical he is? Ask him if he supports polygamy.
I’m returning to the abortion question, but first let me deal with Tex’s point on marijuana criminalization…
Abortion in all circumstances terminates a human life. That is why it’s called “ABORT”ion. The sale of weed through Mexican cartels kills both Mexicans and American law enforcement. Ask anybody living on the border about the sale of dope and they will give you specific examples of how deadly it is.
1. Raising marijuana and smoking it does not cause the deaths caused by the cartel. In fact, the CRIMINALIZATION of marijuana does more to contribute to those deaths than anything else. Without “illegal weed,” the drug cartels would go out of business as a provider, undone by the free market.
2. Killing people and other crimes are covered by other laws. But people can raise and smoke marijuana without engaging in murder and other crimes. Many people do, in fact. We criminalize the behavior that causes harm to others but not the behavior that doesn’t. We criminalize the murder, etc, but not the mere smoking, as THAT causes no harm to others.
3. IF we are going to extend crimes beyond their very nature to what SOME who participate might do, then by that logic, we might criminalize marriage. After all, SOME people who get married go on to abuse their spouses. Clearly, then (by that line of reasoning), we must outlaw marriage in order to stop the abuse, right?
No, of course not “right.” We penalize the offending behavior. In the case of marriage, it’s not marriage that’s the problem, it’s the abuse. In the case of marijuana, it’s not smoking the marijuana that’s a problem for others, it’s the murder. We don’t penalize the whole group (whether it’s smokers or married folk) for the actions of a subgroup (the murderers or abusers).
Can we agree on that?
(And to be clear, I ask NOT as a “tactic” or a “trick” or anything other than a question seeking clarification of a point, to see if we agree on that point.
Geez…)
On abortion:
IF we could ever get around to agreeing on the basic, “If an action causes unjust harm to others, we rightfully can consider legislating it somehow…” we could move on. Since I agree with that notion (and despite your apparent reluctance to say so out loud, I expect you all agree, too), I’ll move on.
1. Yes, we have a right to restrict or regulate behavior that causes harm to others.
2. There may be (and are) exceptions to this, though.
3. Clearly, having the “right” to drive an auto has with it the reality that it will cause harm. Not so much one car out there driving around (although the potential for harm is there), but tens and hundreds of millions of people driving produces enough toxic gas that harm is done. People with asthma, for instance, can’t safely go outside on some days, for fear of getting ill. In that case, we’ve made an exception to the rule (if it causes harm to others, we might restrict/prohibit it…)
4. In the world of medicine/healthcare, there are instances of exceptions, too.
5. If, for instance, I am injured in an accident and I’m braindead but still alive. If I’m attached to a machine that is keeping me alive, my wife may well decide the best thing to do is to “pull the plug” and let me die in peace. That would be my wish, in that case.
6. Now clearly, “pulling the plug” can be said to cause harm, insofar as it leads to my death. But it would be my wish in that instance and we, the people, have deemed it reasonable to allow individuals and their families to make that decisions for themselves.
7. That is to say: We have decided that we DON’T want gov’t to be the arbitrator in such cases, saying, “THIS person should die, THAT person should live” but rather, we leave it to the family and the individual to make that decision. Rightly so, I say. EVEN THOUGH it can be argued reasonably that it is causing harm.
8. The reality is that there are some “tough call” situations. IF I have a machine breathing for me and that’s all that’s keeping me alive, I’m not really alive am I? Or am I? What if I’m in such great pain that the only thing that keeps me alive is medicine that leaves me comatose, is that “living?” These are more of philosophical and religious decisions, we have decided, not a governmental ones. I think rightly so, we have allowed folk to make “end of life” decisions for themselves.
9. Does that mean there isn’t the potential for abuse? Some nephew “pulling the plug” on an aunt in order to get an inheritance, and not really in an effort to honor her wishes? Sure, there is the potential for abuse there. It is, to me and I think most people, a gray area that we ought to be wary of, and yet, still try to leave it mostly to the family, not “big gov’t.”
10. Abortion, to me, is like that. If a fetus/unborn child is severely damaged and will be born only to suffer for a few hours and die, I want the parents to be able to make medical decisions for that child, not some gov’t entity.
11. Does that mean that there isn’t the potential for abuse there? That some parent would want an abortion for whimsical reasons (“I want a boy, not a girl!”)? Sure. And again, I think it is a gray area and that we ought to be/need to be wary about going there. STILL, ultimately, I want to leave these sorts of decisions in the hands of the family, not some gov’t agency.
12. If we could get past the “baby-killer” “anti-Christ-ian” rhetoric, we might even find some common ground and work to reduce what I might call “whimsical” abortions, or abortions of convenience. But it seems to me, in order to get there, we need to work through some of these issues of how we go about deciding ethically what to legislate and not. Which is why these sorts of conversations might be helpful, if we can actually have them…
“The diplomat warned that if Florida Pastor Terry Jones goes ahead with his plans to burn copies of the Quran, it will set off a massive reaction in parts of the Muslim world.”
Ever notice that the islamic world loves to threaten with violence if offended? Burn baby burnnnnnn
Why? “Marriage” meaning the union of two people, does not belong to the church, or to the gov’t. What if we want to call marriage between gay folk “Holy Matrimony” – do you all have sole rights to that term, as well?
I’m sorry. What part of the answer I gave you earlier this morning up thread were you having trouble grokking? Or did you just deem it unworthy of a response?
There may be (and are) exceptions to this, though.
And when did we determine that it was ok for the exception to swallow the rule?
It wasn’t an accident that that those who wanted to cloak murder in the mantle of privacy told us for years that they wanted to make
murderabortion “safe, rare and legal? Why would it be necessary to make it rare if there was nothing abhorrant in the practice? Afterall, that’s what these lovers of privacy keep telling us. And of course we all know that making something legal is the first step to making it rare, right? Because no one would ever construe society legitimizing an activity with society endorsing it, right? I’m sure making it rare was the underlying factor in why its been so important to allow little Suzie to get an abortion without her parents’ consent or knowledge.Why can marriage mean the union between 3 or more people?
I didn’t see that answer, BiW.
So, you said…
It discovers a law that does not exist, in order to conveniently trump a law legitimately arrived at. Of course, with the real issue being a drive to wrest society’s sanction from it for their conduct, I can only wonder what the next “accomodation” is to be demanded from the rest of society when homosexuals realize that taking this from us still won’t make them feel any better about themselves or what they are doing.
So yes, Dan, you got a much more complete answer than what you claim.
And I guess you’re not getting my point or I’m not getting yours. The question I’m asking is, what ETHICAL, LOGICAL grounds do we have for making law. I’m not speaking right now of anyone’s interpretations of the Constitution. I’m speaking of moral reasoning. ON WHAT LOGICAL, MORAL, ETHICAL BASIS do we/ought we create laws?
Any chance of answering THAT question?
Complete this sentence, “Gay marriage/drug usage/sodomy ought to be outlawed because…”
And then, do you get my point that when I oppose/support a law, it is generally because of NATURAL law reasoning (ie, your right to swing your hand ends at my nose; ie, you have liberty, BUT you don’t have liberty to harm others…). On what basis do you propose laws be enacted, actions regulated or banned?
You made a claim in your post, I am responding to that claim (ie, that liberty means your three favored definitions). If you don’t want to make your case for what SEEMS LIKE highly whimsical and feelings-based approach to law-making, you of course don’t have to. I just think this is a good question worth considering and talking about in a rational way.
Your call.
I owe Tigre an answer to this question even though the question is a non-sequiter considering I said Bachmann’s rhetoric was dangerous and I said nothing about an affront to feminism. Tigre is pulling one of my comments from another thread.
Be that as it may, here is my answer. I assume, perhaps mistakenly, that feminists want equal footing with men and to achieve that footing they make the case that they are equally or better qualified than their male counterparts. Some 20 years after an intelligent woman ran for VP the first time, John McCain in a last ditch attempt to spice up his campaign picked the cutest empty-headedest woman he could find to be his running mate. In interview after interview, Ms. Palin proved herself to be no better informed (or less informed) about matters of importance than your average suburban housewife. She was an utter embarrassment. For women who wanted someone to carry the banner of gender equality, she was mortifying.
I have yet to read the excerpts but from what I understand the new book by John McCain’s daughter Meghan spells out just what a train wreck Sarah was. So you see, I don’t need to pull my “lame stream” media sources like Mark Halperin and John Heileman of “Game Change”. I can point to a conservative woman who saw the disaster up close and personal.
In the “dumb and dumber” pair, I consider Bachmann to be the dumb one. I suspect Bachmann is a hair smarter than Sarah. I think her legislative experience in a state that has some degree of diversity gives her an edge over Sarah’s isolated experience in Alaska. In fact I’m not putting words in Cathy’s mouth (cos I know she’d spit them back at me like bullets) but I suspect even Cathy would acknowledge Bachmann to be more capable all the way around than Palin.
Oh and Cathy … if you think Palin was treated “snarky and childish”, please explain this comment to me: “How’s that hopey changey stuff workin’ for ya?” Sarah Palin is the very definition of snarky.
Would this be the same “intelligent woman” who went all raaaaacccciiisssstttt not too long ago?
Oh, I know. It isn’t racist when a leftist says it, as evidenced by the Sotomayor confirmation hearings.
R, I am glad you returned to this question. I appreciate your honesty but I am appalled by it.
You are right. I pulled the comment from a thread at your post. And in fairness, when you mentioned the “affront,” you were purporting to relay your wife’s “immediate” perception of Palin’s selection. However, you have adopted it, and your response is precisely why my question was not a non-sequitur.
You say, “I assume, perhaps mistakenly, that feminists want equal footing with men and to achieve that footing they make the case that they are equally or better qualified than their male counterparts.”
What a load of horseshit! You in effect hold out the concept of feminism as not so much the advancement of women as a designation exclusive to those that share your misguided arrogance and perceptions of intelligence?
What you’ve said is just incredible to me. An ivy league educated black male considers an influential female and former governor of Alaska “selected” as Vice Presidential running mate an “affront” to feminism because in your estimation she “proved herself to be no better informed (or less informed) about matters of importance than your average suburban housewife.” To you she’s dumb — and of course a “dumb chick” in a position of power is an affront to feminism? Good God man. She is an “affront” to feminism because you don’t view her as a suitable mascot to “carry the banner of gender equality?” And you had time to think that through?
Rutherford, I really do enjoy the exchanges, but in this instance I am downright embarrassed by your strident shallowness. It is why I posed the question. Your commentary on Palin, Bachman (and I suspect all conservative females) is typical of the left and its duplicitous concepts of equality based on misguided symbolism. Your explanation of why Palin or Bachman is an affront to feminism is itself a monumental affront to feminism. Yet I’ll wager you consider yourself aligned.
Sorry for the rant. I had time to think about it on the way to work. And it’s not so much that I have any affinity for the feminist movement, indeed I think what it has become is in many respects a sad joke, it’s the dishonesty of the left’s justifications for bashing conservative females. It’s like you all have an ownership interest in them.
I will say though, based on what you’ve said here, I can’t wait for a discussion about affirmative action.
Alfie, that is true only if that is true. 🙂 I don’t know Dan well enough to say that is true in his case. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, I think he is trying to cut through polarizing rhetoric by finding common ground from which a debate can proceed with more substance and less furor.
By the way, BiW, this thread has started to resemble a soap opera. You walk away for a day or so, come back, and find the plot hasn’t advanced too much. You guys are still debating style over substance where Dan is concerned. Truly odd.
Probably because Dan hasn’t bothered to actually address what was actually written, opting instead to continue to reframe things that that weren’t the subject of the post. Not so odd when you think about it.
Alfie, why is the choice between stoking rage and ignoring it? Why isn’t there a moderate solution that involves calming the rage with facts and where necessary, changes in policy?
There is a difference between stoking the rage and letting it be known that you understand it. Maybe you just couldn’t hear clearly over the Wrong Reverend Sharptongue’s “Reclaim the Dependency” claptrap, the sound of the SEIU thugs slapping people who resist joining the union and carrying preprinted signs with obvious spelling errors, and the AFLCIO head screaming about how they shoved health care down the Republican’s throats.
In fact, it is a wonder you can hear anything correctly through all that noise.
Rutherford,
If you’ve worked any in corporate America, and I know you have with vast experience, you know that the issue of equal pay for equal work has not only been addressed, but like Title IX has flipped the script.
It was my experience over 20 years, not only were men now being held to a higher standard for the same pay, but were bullied beyond belief. How many sexual harassment classes did you attend? You’re talking to someone who was called to Human Resources for saying, “Look lady. We are doing our best.” And I know you know that if you were going to be honest.
The only difference in pay is that many women have their careers interrupted. Any woman starting in the same job with the same responsibility out of college receives the same pay. I know, because I hired a bunch of them.
=========
Now to address Sarah Palin, let’s say you’re right for the minute. Simple, suburban housewife. Maybe so. You mean to tell me you don’t think a typical college educated housewife couldn’t do a better job of running the country than the boners we have now? Are you kidding? If she did nothing, she would be better. I guarantee you my wife would destroy Obama in a debate and I’d stake my life on that. And she would consider herself just a mom.
And why is that you’ll continually mock Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann as stupid, when both are infinitely smarter, more professionally accomplished, and a hell of a lot more honest and decent than Nancy Pelosi? You want to talk about a harpy that embarrasses womanhood? Nancy Pelosi is an arrogant disgrace…and probably the most disdained politician in America today and you ignore that fact.
Are you really suggesting that we amend the constitution for every nickle and dime thing we want to do legislatively? The civil rights legislation of the 1960’s was not done by amendment. Should it have been?
Similarly, the absurd case of the founding fathers not speaking about a national air force. Do we need to amend the Constitution every time new technology makes the Fed capable of something it was not capable of before, but is still in the spirit of its previously spelled out powers?
Legislation is passed by representative government. If it does not pass constitutional muster, it gets challenged in the courts. This sounds like “we the people” to me.
Also on another note … I believe you questioned why kidnapping and bank robbery should be under the purview of the FBI. I can’t speak to bank robbery but I’m guessing kidnapping is often interstate and therefore falls under Federal jurisdiction. I’m just guessing.
but I’m guessing kidnapping is often interstate and therefore falls under Federal jurisdiction. I’m just guessing.
You’re right. You’re guessing.
Rutherford, I’m suggesting that legislation is not proper when it exceeds the scope of authority that WE gave to the legislature, and it isn’t like that hasn’t happened.
But we also have a problem with courts that also exceed their authority and make it up out of whole cloth, and you “changing society” doesn’t provide them with the authority to do so.
I’d bet you real money that if women’s sufferage were an issue today, rather than an amendment, the sufferagettes would simply find a liberal court to make it up for them.
If it is something that exceeds the authority of government, but you can make a convincing case that government needs that power, then you can convince us all, rather than simply usurping it. If it is a “fundamental” change from the status quo, then you owe your fellow citizens, many of whom have made life decision based on that status quo that much. My consent to your objectives is not something to be taken for granted or wrested from me. Its why we have the process.
Cowards one and all …. I completely agree with you.
Cathy, it certainly is not. I wouldn’t blame you in the least for wondering why I consider Elric a total boob (no offense to female anatomy intended). 🙂
Tex … that’s why I’ll always enjoy reading your blog comments. You always … or at least often make me chuckle (and every now and then, not take myself too seriously).
“R”,
I do enjoy making you chuckle. One of a handful of libs that does have a good sense of humor. Now on to more serious matters of your party that puts politics before principle.
You better lecture your new friend “FAKE” (and I do love that name), because she was lecturing I believe it was BiC at Hippie’s blog about just that. How are country a country of nothing but amendments. 😉
Sorry Dog but I can’t sign up for your basic premise. I think liberals believe that guns shouldn’t be in just anyone’s hands. Gun control is not equivalent to gun-banning. The wife of a Republican administration official, Sarah Brady was a strong advocate of gun control because she damn near lost her husband to gun violence and we damn near lost our President that day.
By the way, the conservative exercising his wish not to own a gun doesn’t mitigate against the nutjob down the street shooting him in the head.
Oops. Time to go to bed when I start repeating words. I haven’t been with it all day. If you’re going to put real wood floors in your older house, I would highly suggest one room at a time, and far away from anything you really like.
I had foolishly forgotten that most workers don’t give a damn about your property. The guy told me when starting yesterday, “Don’t worry about a thing. We treat everyone’s home just like our own!”
And I wanted to say, “I know – that is what worries me!” 🙂
G, was the 1968 “southern strategy” a lie?
The 2nd amendment getting twisted again.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” That’s for a militia Dog, not for your loony living down the block. Be that as it may, the Supreme Court has extended the verbiage (ooo judicial advocacy!) to include the right of the average joe to keep a firearm for legal purposes including self-defense. This same opinion stated that “its ruling was not to be taken as an indication that all firearm restrictions are unconstitutional”(1).
So I’m sorry to break it to you but the 2nd Amendment doesn’t give the dude recently released from a mental ward the “right” to go purchase a gun.
Rutherford,
Please, find in the Heller decision where the majority extended the right to an “average joe”.
I know, this goes straight to the heart of the originalist view that you so despise, but really, that statement misrepesents the ruling.
Further, the language of the amendment doesn’t say the the right to bear arms shall not be infringed unless you just returned from Dr. Feelgood’s Rest Home. That is a restriction you inserted.
Tex, I’ve never met your wife but I’m damn sure that to say she could mop the floor with Sarah Palin would be damning by faint praise. Your wife could annihilate Sarah Palin. You’ve actually struck gold here. There should be thousands of women across the country saying “Damn … that nitwit gets to run for VP? Sheeeeut, I could out-do her with my hands tied behind my back.”
There are a good number of “suburban housewives” who could do a better job than some of our elected officials. Sarah ain’t one of them.
As for equal pay for women, despite my years in Corp America I really cannot sign onto your theory that pay discrimination is a thing of the past. It was and is very common at my old company to make people do work that was a pay grade above what they were being paid. While that happened across gender, I couldn’t swear that women didn’t get the short end more often than men.
BiW … being racist and intelligent are not mutually exclusive. I happen to dislike Geraldine Ferrarro but she impresses me as 100 times more on the ball than Ms. Palin.
Any idea why McCain didn’t choose Kay Bailey Hutchison for his running mate? Was Sarah the only female Republican he could choose? You also don’t find it the least bit scary that Palin was chosen with virtually no vetting?
Why is it you believe Ferrarro to be so much more intelligent?
And I wasn’t a fan of McLame. If I had to venture a guess, I would say that it was because Palin is more conservative than he is, and that made it palatable for that conservative block that would have otherwise not bothered to vote for him or would have held their noses while doing so.
BiW, rather than being snarky, is it not possible that kidnapping, being very possibly interstate, falls under the Fed? Is kidnapping federal for grins? If I’m wrong, as you say I am, then what is the reason? It isn’t arbitrary.
If I’m wrong, as you say I am, then what is the reason? It isn’t arbitrary.
It is federal largely because of the Lindbergh Baby Kidnapping case, R. A moment when a tragic and emotional event gave the feds an opportunity to expand their power with nary a discussion of the propriety of doing so.
The article I referenced referred to McDonald v. Chicago as the case that allowed for self defense by the average Joe.
McDonald was still justified by Heller.
But read the decision, don’t read the article. If I had counted on articles to brief my cases in law school, I’d have failed. The article gives you the author’s opinion, the decision gives you legal justifications or the pretense of one.
Damn, missed the beat up on the drone hour.
Imam Rauf: America’s National Security Will be at Risk Unless I Get to Build My Giant Victory Mosque at Ground Zero…
http://weaselzippers.us/2010/09/08/imam-rauf-americas-national-security-will-be-at-risk-unless-i-get-to-build-my-giant-victory-mosque-at-ground-zero/#comments
Again muslims with threats
“I suspect you do, but forgive me for saying so if that is offensive.”
It is offensive that you assume to know what I think. I do not forgive you – you would not be truely sorry, so your false apology is not accepted.
NOW will you stop trying to put words in other peoples’ mouthes, and quit trying to say “Do you mean this …” and say what YOU mean?
Say what I mean?
Forget the “strategy” of clarifying what exactly you mean and just offer my own opinion, divorced from the context of what you had to say? Sure.
Here’s what I think, among other things…
I think you all don’t know how to have a respectful conversation with someone who disagrees with you.
I think if someone is respectful and polite in your company, you all presume that he’s being condescending and that he’s up to something and that perhaps you’re projecting your own arrogance in doing so.
I don’t think any of us are “god” enough to say what the other is thinking.
I think it a crazy idea to suggest that the average guy on the street has a second amendment right to a bomb, a tank, a missile, a nuke.
I think that people can own guns if they’re responsible with them and if we treat them with reasonable safety.
I think it wise to legislate devices that are potentially (and regularly) dangerous to others. We require car license, as so much damage can be done by a car. Rightfully so. That is not “big gov’t.” Just wise gov’t. Similarly, I think we rightfully ought to license gun ownership, too. Same principles.
I think that most who self-identify as “conservative” today wouldn’t know Russell Kirk or his Ten Principles of Conservatism if they bit them in their ass.
I don’t think most who self-identify as “conservative” today don’t have the slightest grasp on the conservative tenet of “Prudence.”
I think that peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding.
I think an onion can make people cry but there’s never been a vegetable that can make people laugh.
I think an association of men who will not quarrel with one another is a thing which has never yet existed, from the greatest confederacy of nations down to a town meeting or a vestry.
I think art is art, and water is water! And east is east and west is west and if you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce they taste much more like prunes than rhubarb does. Now, uh… now you tell me what you know.
With apologies to Will Rogers, Thomas Jefferson, Albert Einstein and Marx (Groucho).
That’s some of what I think. Some of what I mean.
Oh, and I also think, along with St Paul, that whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report: if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.
I think you all don’t know how to have a respectful conversation with someone who disagrees with you.
I think you have no understanding of what I do for a living.
I think if someone is respectful and polite in your
pany, you all presume that he’s being condescending and that he’s up to something and that perhaps you’re projecting your own arrogance in doing so.
I think that you fail to understand that some people don’t find it to be respectful or polite to constantly steer the conversation away from the point of focus in order to find “common ground” before they begin the discussion on the topic presented.
I don’t think any of us are “god” enough to say what the other is thinking.
I think that you fail to understand that we can frequently finish the sentances of those who hold opposing views 8 times out of 10.
I think it a crazy idea to suggest that the average guy on the street has a second amendment right to a bomb, a tank, a missile, a nuke.
I don’t recall anyone here saying that they wanted a bomb (which any fool with a knowledge of chemistry or access to explosives can make), a tank (which is difficult to park and insure), or a nuke (because you can’t just store it anywhere).
I think that people can own guns if they’re responsible with them and if we treat them with reasonable safety.
I think that the average person has no intent to be careless or stupid with them. We don’t want guns so we can be a manace in the hood.
We want guns because when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
We want guns because the Second Amendment preserves the First.
We want guns because they make loud noises and blow holes in things.
We want guns because that venison isn’t going to just lay down on your plate.
We want guns because the animals in the real world aren’t the ones from Disney. They don’t perform for your amusement, and they would eat you if they had a chance.
I think it wise to legislate devices that are potentially (and regularly) dangerous to others. We require car license, as so much damage can be done by a car. Rightfully so. That is not “big gov’t.” Just wise gov’t. Similarly, I think we rightfully ought to license gun ownership, too. Same principles.
I think that the Bill of Rights doesn’t have any language that says “The right of the people to own an automobile shall not be infringed.” Not the same principles.
I think that most who self-identify as “conservative” today wouldn’t know Russell Kirk or his Ten Principles of Conservatism if they bit them in their ass.
I think that people who self-identify as “liberals” have no concept of the classical meaning of the term.
I don’t think most who self-identify as “conservative” today don’t have the slightest grasp on the conservative tenet of “Prudence.”
I think that people who self-identify as “liberals” have not concept of the meaning of the word “restraint”, and have never encountered an aspect of life that they believe government participation would not somehow improve, or any welfare that they would not be happy to make their neighbor pay for.
I think that peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding.
I think that there are some threats that are not rational, and that they will only be kept at arms length by superior force and firepower.
I think an onion can make people cry but there’s never been a vegetable that can make people laugh.
I think that evil, like rust, never sleeps.
I think that figures don’t lie…but liars can figure.
I think an association of men who will not quarrel with one another is a thing which has never yet existed, from the greatest confederacy of nations down to a town meeting or a vestry.
I think that despite the current prevailing wisdom in the feverswamp on the Potomac, there really are things that Harvard trained lawyers simply are not equipped to handle.
I think art is art, and water is water! And east is east and west is west and if you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce they taste much more like prunes than rhubarb does. Now, uh… now you tell me what you know.
I think slavery never left us; it simply changed into dependency.
Oh, and I also think, along with St Paul, that whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report: if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.
I think that Paul was correct when he said:
BiW…
I think that you fail to understand that some people don’t find it to be respectful or polite to constantly steer the conversation away from the point of focus in order to find “common ground” before they begin the discussion on the topic presented.
I think it’s odd in the extreme that having the audacity to “ask questions” and “seek clarification” is considered impolite or not respectful.
Really? (Sorry, I guess that’s a question.)
In my circles and, I believe, normal adult conversations, questions aren’t considered impolite or a sign of arrogance. They’re considered “questions.”
Go figure.
BiW…
I think that you fail to understand that we can frequently finish the sentances of those who hold opposing views 8 times out of 10.
I think you highly overestimate your telepathic powers.
What seems especially strange at all this taking offense at mere questions is all the other actually rude, presumptuous and arrogant dialogue that is taking place all around here.
Grade school name-calling, false and unsupported charges, effluent cursing, slander, bearing of false witness, presuming to speak for others… all of this goes by with nary a comment. But let me start asking clarifying questions and you’d think I was the devil.
Again, I apologize for the question, but do you see how very strangely that comes across?
Ditto what Agiledog ^ said.
BiW, thanks for the Lindbergh historical context. I was not aware of it. However isn’t it interesting that you paint the Fed as opportunistic when they simply may have been trying to satisfy the perceived need of an emotionally wounded nation.
I’m beginning to notice a pattern that actually relieves me a bit. At first blush I had you pegged as just another Obama-hater. But upon further reflection I suspect that you see all of American history as a struggle to keep the Fed from resembling the British monarchy. You see the central government as a monster that must be kept in check.
Am I far off from the truth? If I am correct, it is an interesting perspective of American history.
R, it isn’t just what I think. Its what the Founders and the Framers believed. I know I’ve recommended it to you before, but read The Federalist Papers. Read Madison’s record of the Constitutional Convention. Re-read Common Sense, especially the first two chapters. There isn’t a single one of those men who could look at our government today, and not think that we have lost our minds. Even Hamilton would be appalled, both at what we have, and how people view it. “Central government”? It was never meant to be a “Central Government”, it was supposed to a co-equal soveriegn with the states, not a superior one.
Well Tigre, I will grant you the following.
Over on HP’s blog, Wiser Bud told me that no lib should have the cajones to define true conservatism. (I paraphrase but that was the gist of it.)
Along those lines, I suppose it is arrogant for any man to think he can define proper feminism. With that stated, I therefore confess to the limitations of my perspective.
Of course, for that same reason, I am uncomfortable with a predominantly male legislature writing laws about abortion. But that’s a whole other can of worms we probably don’t want to get into. I’m sure BiW would love for this thread to end.
Of course, for that same reason, I am uncomfortable with a predominantly male legislature writing laws about abortion.
The right to murder a baby isn’t just a feminine issue; and neither is society’s interest in outlawing the practice.
Let me know when your ready. I’ll have my can opener. I can’t wait to revisit your view of who does and is entitled to represent whatever group you claim to identify with.
“I know I’ve recommended it to you before, but read The Federalist Papers. Read Madison’s record of the Constitutional Convention. Re-read Common Sense, especially the first two chapters.”
He prefers the Communist Manifesto and Rules for Radicals.
In my circles and, I believe, normal adult conversations, questions aren’t considered impolite or a sign of arrogance. They’re considered “questions.”
Go figure.
You know, I think that’s the second or third time you’ve slipped an “Adult” barb into one of your replies. It isn’t especially clever, nor is it terribly amusing. Generally, it tends to make me take what ever accompanies such a remark that much less seriously.
Perhaps some introduction is in order. I have legally been considered an adult for over 20 years now. I know that many of the commenters here are older than I am. While I don’t know the ciriculum vitaes of most of them in detail, I do know that many of them have managed to have professional level careers for much of their adult lives. I myself earned a B.A., a J.D., and an LL.M. I am a practicing attorney, and am outside counsel to roughly 50 corporations, partnerships, and LLCs. I am also a member in good standing of my church, and the leader of my oldest son’s Cub Scout Den. In 20 years and many different jobs and classes across the midwest and northwest, you’re to first person taken with the curious notion that I somehow do not conduct “normal adult conversations”. I suggest that perhaps the problem lies in your perception, not my execution.
BiW…
I think you highly overestimate your telepathic powers.
I think that telepathy has nothing to do with it. I think it is rote memorization.
“What? You oppose the President’s policy on XXXXXX? You must be a Racist!”
“What? You oppose a mosque at Park51? You must be a Bigot!”
“What? You oppose extending unemployment payments when Congress refuses to pay for it from existing revenue? You must HATE THE UNEMPLOYED!!!”
“What? You refuse to recognize the brilliance underlying the current fiscal policies???? You must be an anti-intellectual!!!!”
I could continue, but why?