With the growth of the Tea Party movement, and the seemingly overall swelling of interest in the political, today might more, or at least, different significance than July 4th's of recent years. 9/11 brought about a patriotism based on a rejection of foreign tyranny and the feeling protecting the nation from it. Now, there is a sense of patriotism based on a rejection of domestic tyranny, manifested in bad legislation, appointments, judicial nominations and proposals still going through the process of forced feeding of an unwilling populace. More people, hopefully, are looking to our founders to remember what they had in mind for our country and our Constitution, and those who do are shocked at how far away from those ideals our leaders have tried to direct this nation.
We must resolve on this day to become even more involved, more vocal and more willing to take action as we get even closer to November. Stay on top of our representatives no matter what party they happen to represent. Make sure they understand that above all, they are to represent us.
Please keep the course and character of our nation in mind today. We must not let that course continue in the current direction. We must not allow the character of our nation to diminish any more than it has, but must insure that its character is refined and elevated so that our leadership amongst nations is again apparent.
In the meantime, don't blow off any fingers today. Enjoy the day, but remember why it's special.
218 comments:
1 – 200 of 218 Newer› Newest»It's hard to remember what principles this country was founded upon. We have been living under fascism since Theodore Roosevelt's administration, except for the 8 years under Reagan.
Let's not ignore Calvin Coolidge, Reagan's favorite president...
Myself, I believe that we shouldn't -- and generally we DON'T -- presume that political disagreements are built on a rejection of this country's founding principles. There are heated discussions within conservative ranks about the efficacy of the "fair tax" and about the best way to protect American society and national interests from Islamists, but these discussions are within the bounds of our founding principles.
At the same time, no one should presume that ALL disagreements are within those bounds.
It's one thing to affirm, correctly, that the Constitution protects rights not explicitly enumerated, especially because of the Tenth Amendment. It's another thing entirely to deny those rights that are explicit, such as the right to keep and bear arms.
It's one thing to believe that the document can be improved through the ONE AND ONLY explicitly Constitutional method of revision, the amendment process of Article V. It's another thing entirely to support changing the supreme law of the land through implausible reinterpretations.
Put simply, if you believe in the legal regime of abortion-on-demand and an ever expanding government that taxes more and more, spends more and more, and increasingly regulates every aspect of our lives, it's clear you don't really believe in our inalienable rights to life and liberty.
It's no sin to point that out.
If you don't believe women should have control over their own bodies, and that people should have the same rights that every other American has, and that the best burger needs no condiments, it's "clear you don't really believe in our inalienable rights to life and liberty."
"If you don't believe women should have control over their own bodies..."
How long do we have to suffer this stupid strawman argument? When you can prove that the body being put to death is the woman's body, then this might actually make some kind of sense.
Ditto this stupid argument that is meant to attack those who defend marriage:
"...and that people should have the same rights that every other American has..."
I agree that the comment presumably alluded to "gay marriage," and taking the illogic of Jim's rhetoric to its logical conclusion would mean that marriage must have NO real definition whatsoever -- or else we would supposedly run the risk of denying equal rights to polygamists, the incestuous, hebephiliacs and necrophiliacs.
The irony is also worth noting, that Jim pretends to affirm the idea "that people should have the same rights that every other American has," IMMEDIATELY after denying the essential right to life of those who are still in the womb.
Separately, the debauched defense of sexual perversion is morally repugnant, as is the sociopathic defense of the legal abortion of literally tens of millions. Together, they give the impression that Jim's moral compass is completely defective.
"Domestic tyranny?" Really?
Hyperbole much?
Dan tried to publish a comment that didn't post. Actually, two comments. I tried to restore them to my inbox so that I can copy and paste them, but the didn't restore (yet), so I'll simply relate what they said. They were both short, so I don't think I'll have too much trouble.
He first reprinted "domestic tyranny" and then said, "Hyperbole much?"
I think that was an attempt at humor, since "hyperbole" isn't a verb. However, the point he thought he was making, though clear, is totally off the mark. The comment is out of context, something that Dan NEVER does (sarcasm), but should include that "there is a sense of patriotism based on a rejection of" domestic tyranny. That's the sentiment driving Tea Party members/followers. If there's a tendency toward hyperbole, it would be more apt in the words of leftists toward Tea Party people. But the caution against domestic tyranny is legitimate in a nation where a government forces unwanted health care legislation down the throats of the people. When a president thinks he can mandate that a company put up billions to be doled out at the whim of a third party, rather than let the courts decide to whom that company might owe damages and how much, the charge of domestic tyranny doesn't ring false to even those with only a passing familiarity with how the gov't is supposed to work. Take over corporations and dictate compensation? Take over property and for the benefit of a private company? Allow courts to over-ride the will of the people? Sanction the killing of unborn? If "tyranny" is the wrong word, what is the right one? "Democracy"? Don't be stupid.
Dan's other comment suggested my words were laughable. Laughable is Dan's attempt to mock the growing state of public sentiment.
What's up??
This is weird.
Hello? Marshall?
Dan,
Hard to believe, but I don't sit in front of the computer all day. Be patient. I'll get to things eventually.
I don't know why you're having trouble. As I said, I'm getting the email of your comments, but they're not showing up here. Here's the last one not solely related to the technical snafu:
"What happened to the first batch of comments?
Regardless, I had referenced your "there is a sense of patriotism based on a rejection of domestic tyranny..."
And noted that this sort of stuff is NOT the stuff of patriotism, but anti-American intolerance and just comes across as nutty.
You DISAGREE with Obama on some legislation, not unlike my disagreeing with Bush (as well as Obama) on some legislation. Such is life in a Republic.
There is NO domestic tyranny happening. Those who embrace such loopy comments reject our nation's founding principles.
Happy fourth of July to you, may we show proper respect for disagreement within this great Republic as is due and appropriate.
Peace."
I wasn't being impatient, I was just curious and wondering if you were aware of the issue. Sorry for posting so many. They eventually showed up (again) and I proceeded to delete most of them, so as not to repeat myself. This happened over at American Descent, too, fyi.
I stand by my contention: Suggesting we have a problem with "domestic tyranny" just sounds silly and some folk will just write those who suggest such off as irrelevant and so blinded by partisanship that they can't see the real world.
Unlike your original comment, in this one you reprinted the entire bit wherein "domestic tyranny" was found. And like earlier, I insist that a gov't forcing through a cumbersome 2000 page health care bill that even the prez, the Senate majority leader, the Speaker of the House, and all but a few other members of Congress read and/or understood, a bill that most Americans did not want as more of it became public knowledge, is a form of domestic tyranny every bit as bad as what drove the original Tea Party people to dump tea in Boston Harbor.
I insist that it is domestic tyranny to have a few guys in black robes overturn the will of the people in various states that, had they been allowed to vote, would have voted against the will of those people in black robes.
I insist that the Kelo decision is domestic tyranny.
I insist that for a prez to demand any sum from a private business and have that monely doled out by a third party is domestic tyranny as well as outside his Constitutional duties.
I insist that a president "firing" a corporate head is domestic tyranny as well as outside his constitutional duties.
I insist that a court, supported by the prez, that sanctions the deaths of millions of unborn is domestic tyranny.
I'm sure I can go on. You think this is a result of our republic working as it should. As I've stated, the above is a list of things that contradict the will of "WE THE PEOPLE", as you love to put it, as well as actions that the US Constitution prohibits. Things will not improve in this regard if those idiots confirm that idiot Kagan. The tyranny will only get worse.
You speak against any hint that anyone would ever take up arms in revolt against this gov't. I would hate to see this as well and would preach against it to anyone who puts it anywhere near the top of their "to do" list. But when the system is corrputed to the point that so much already ignores the will of the people, what recourse is left them? Our voice and votes mean nothing in the face of such blatant arrogance. How much damage will be done before Nov 2010 and Nov 2012? So much damage has been done already.
The sentiment that we are dealing with domestic tyranny is a legitimate one. That the tyranny is softer than the average Hussein-type despot is irrelevant. It's tyranny nonetheless and you and people like you are complicit by your votes for and defense of this administration.
And BTW, the sentiment is only silly to those who refuse to open their eyes, and to those who are unfamiliar with how this gov't is supposed to work. It might also be silly to those who approve of it all. As to which of the three groups you belong I'll let pass for now. None are groups to which any self-respecting citizen should align himself.
Tyranny: 1 : oppressive power; especially : oppressive power exerted by government
2 a : a government in which absolute power is vested in a single ruler;
Real world examples of tyrannical states include:
Pinochet's Chile
Hitler's Germany
Stalin's USSR
Somoza's Nicaragua
For example, where they murdered and tortured and did so as a dictatorship - that's tyranny. Calling a president or administration a "tyranny" simply because you disagree with some policies (no death, no murders, no overthrown of democracy, no invasions of other nations unprovoked, no torture) waters down the term "tyranny," and to do so for ugly partisan reasons is just, well, ugly and petty.
Disagreement with our fellow citizens is part and parcel of this great american experiment. Stooping to call your brothers and sisters tyrannical is not (well, actually, it probably is, but it's not part of our finest ideals.)
Again, the definition of tyranny is oppression. Merely paying more in taxes to support a policy with which you disagree just doesn't meet the definition.
Marshall...
It's tyranny nonetheless and you and people like you are complicit by your votes for and defense of this administration.
I don't think even you think this is true. IF I thought it were true that we had become a tyranny, I would actively start opposing it. I would refuse to pay taxes. I would work to subvert the gov't. IF I thought so.
Further, if I were someone who believed in the myth of redemptive violence as you do, I would take up arms in order to stop this tyranny.
You are merely whining on a blog. You haven't ceased paying taxes. You haven't taken up arms.
If you really think we're living in a tyranny, then you are a mouse of a man to not stand up against it any further than rants on a blog.
You're being absurd and talking tough knowing you won't have to prove it. Not paying taxes would get you nowhere but jail and there have been plenty that sought to fight the IRS as a tyrannical organization itself and failed to accomplish anything.
To say tyranny is only in effect when people die is also absurd. All conditions are a matter of degrees. Obama is a socialist, but not to the degree of some, but a socialist nonetheless. His admin and his party are tyrannical to a degree because they ignore the will of the people to further their own ends, allegedly in the name of the people (like all tyrants do initially). This admin is more tyrannical in fact than Booth thought of Lincoln's. You can mock all you like because the rhetoric is extreme. But the fact of the matter is that people like you don't listen if the rhetoric ISN'T extreme. Those not paying attention need such rhetoric to wake them up to the reality of the situation, because they aren't listening either and don't care until they feel the pain. You mock because you agree with what Obama does and the overall cause of socialism and use equally harsh words and sentiments and tones to characterize that with which YOU disagree. Note the words you use whenever violence is needed.
The best way, presently, to deal with this level of tyranny does not yet require useless actions like withholding taxes. It requires keeping people awake and seeing things as they are so that when the time comes to vote, they vote intelligently to depose these idiots in power. It requires nagging one's representatives with phone calls, faxes, letters and emails, as well as to show up to meetings and speeches and rallies and support those who are busy working to unseat these fools.
That you can't see the oppression in the policies and actions taken by this admin makes you a blind fool. That the oppression doesn't rise to the level YOU think the word requires in order to be used is partisan puking of your own. Wake the hell up.
Jonah Goldberg, in his book, "Liberal Fascism" calls the kind of tyranny we are seeing in the Obama regime a "smiley-face fascism".
Mark Levin, in his book, "Liberty and Tyranny" calls it "soft tyranny".
These terms describe the kind of principles embodied by fascism and, curiously enough, what I call, "modern moderately progressive liberalism".
Both political ideologies contain the exact same core principles. Both rely on the government as the main provider of goods and services to the people. Both imply that the people are not smart enough to take care of themselves, therefore, the government must care for them. Both ideologies believe that the government bestows rights on the people, not God.
There is no place for God in modern Liberalism or any form of fascism, be it a soft tyranny or an oppressive one.
Neither represent a Democratic republic.
His admin and his party are tyrannical to a degree because they ignore the will of the people to further their own ends
Tyrannical to a degree? Wow, the absurdity is stunning.
Apparently you don't believe in the American system. You apparently believe the best government is the one that changes direction with the will of the people. Government by polls I guess is your perfect model.
And yet, I'll bet I'll find posts around hear that supported the previous administration when they acted counter to the "will of the people."
We elect our president and political officials. They do what they can to further the interests of America according to their social and political philosophies. If they fail to improve America's safety and economy, we vote them out in the next election.
This is not tyranny. This is a representative democracy. It's only "tyranny" to you because you don't like it. 2008? You lost. Try again in 2012.
I give up. You guys are just loonies.
Jim, you are right. If THIS is tyranny to them, then it just means they don't like it when they lose.
Grow up and grow a pair. If it's tyranny, act like it, act like a man and fight the tyranny (and end up in jail because of the insanity of acting on such a belief when it's clearly not tyranny).
If you're not going to grow up or grow a pair, then just rant away until you're an irrelevant little blip on the history books. I give up on you all on this sort of insane brain diarrhea.
Jim, you contradict yourself with your own words, "They do what they can to further the interests of America according to their social and political philosophies."
"According to their own social and political philosophies."
Yep.
And Obama's own social and political philosophy is Tyranny, demonstrated by the list of Constitutional abuses Art previously enumerated.
Dan, by your refusal to even attempt rebutting Art's examples of Obama's tyranny, and by your "You guys aren't playing fair" attitude when faced with a lucid, logical, factual argument, you demonstrate once again that you throw like a girl.
And you tell us to grow up and grow a pair.
What a laugh!
Jim,
As Mark said, how does a president further the interests of American by acting outside the US Constitution he had sworn to uphold and defend? This isn't just disagreeing with his inane and American destroying policies, but his willful disregard for Constitutional mandates in furthering his stupidity.
And why do they call them "Representatives" if they do not represent the will of the people? You're right that once we vote them in, they're supposed to do their jobs, but they are not supposed to ignore the voice of the people once they're voted in. It's not as if the people are being fickle when, for example, they want something done about the cost of health care but get Obama-care instead. Obama-care is NOT what the people ever asked for. Why are we getting it when so many disapprove?
And for Dan,
Your insistence that we must now rise up in a manner that YOU find consistent with the term "tyranny" is dishonesty consistent with your character. What I'm doing now, such as, but not limited to what I write in this blog, is commensurate with the level of tyranny we now endure. All your talk about "just war" and "peaceful protests" and "non-violence" is now to be ignored because I aptly use the term "tyranny"? Is this another example of your so-called God-given ability to reason? You have no more ability to divine WHEN violence is necessary than your ability to understand that it often IS necessary in this fallen world.
At the same time, you apparently believe in Obama and the brilliance that he has yet to manifest. AS you continue to support this loser, I'm not surprised that you would endorse his form of tyranny as beneficial to our nation.
Jim, I broadly agree with the notion that, in a representative republic, the representive should follow his principles rather than polls of public opinion.
But the ONLY way for that sort of system to be representative is for politicians to be honest about their principles. To the degree that an elected official has lied about his principles, he has lost the legitimacy to govern by those principles on the electorate's behalf, because the electorate was misled about what principles guided him.
Whether you disagree with his philosophy and policies or not, Ronald Reagan was honest: he ran as a tax-cutting cold warrior, and he governed as the same.
With substantial help from a pliant media, Barack Obama was dishonest: he ran as a post-partisan moderate, and he is governing as the most radical partisan ever elected to high office in this country. That deception on his part won him the election, but it lost him any real legitimacy to govern according to those now-unmasked principles.
And, Jim, we're not just a representative republic, we're a constitutional republic. Politicians tend toward the tyrannical, not only when they subverts the will of the people through deception, but also when they disregard the limits placed upon them by the supreme law of the land, a Constitution that was ratified by the people from whom a government's sole legitimacy derives.
"but also when they disregard the limits placed upon them by the supreme law of the land, a Constitution that was ratified by the people from whom a government's sole legitimacy derives."
I hope you are including the recent Bush Administration in that as well.
Besides being fraudulent, the Left's usual litany of charges against Bush had little to do with a real concern for the Constitution, but there were times when the President didn't seem to take his commitment to the supreme law of the land as seriously as he should have -- as when he nominated Harriet Meiers or when he signed into law McCain-Feingold on the stated belief that the courts would rule against what was unconstitutional.
(The fact that he almost never even mentioned the veto power, much less used it, was disconcerting in itself.)
I think part of the problem was Bush's so-called "compassionate conservatism," which was really a form of statism, using progressive means to advance conservative social causes instead of progressive social causes. Especially at the federal level, such government activism is incompatible with a constitution that limits the federal government as much as ours does.
But I think is a tremendous difference between complacency about the Constitution and outright contempt for the document.
Could you give me specific examples of where you think the Obama administration has contempt for the constitution?
If I may offer a thought, there, Marty...
Where Obama has continued the Bush policies of imprisoning people (Guantanamo) without due process, that is showing contempt for the Constitution.
Where Obama had continued the Bush policies of giving passes to oil and coal companies so that they can do irresponsible mining/drilling to the People's land, that is showing contempt for the Constitution.
Continuing indefinitely this wrong war of Bush's in Iraq, that is showing contempt for American ideals, if not the Constitution.
In short, in many areas where Obama has continued Bush policies, he has shown contempt for the Constitution and our ideals - contempt that candidate Obama complained about at the time.
But, at least he is moving in the right direction on most of these fronts - albeit it too slowly.
I agree Dan. But I'm not sure that these are the areas that Bubba was talking about.
Hoo Hoo! Oh, Wow, Marty. That one is just too easy! I'll let you and your fascist friends figure it out for yourselves.
Some examples of Obama having contempt for the Constitution...Make it harder for us, Marty. Why not ask for examples when he doesn't? That would be much harder.
"I'll let you and your fascist friends figure it out for yourselves."
That's always a comment people make when they don't know a damn thing about it and pretend to. On the right and left.
The president is Constitutionally allowed to send troops as he sees fit without a declaration of war by Congress. The righteous war against a despot that threatened the region in which he lived, the people over which he ruled, the US planes patrolling over a UN declared no-fly zone, and numerous other crimes needs to be seen to a proper conclusion and it marks one of the few things Obama has done. But give him time. He'll screw it up if he decides to intervene.
The holding of prisoners at Gitmo is not unConstitutional unless you consider enemy combatants taken from engagements in foreign lands to be mere criminals. Only idiots believe this line of reasoning. No prisoner taken during WWII was given habeus corpus rights. The only difference regards the declaration of war, but military engagements are not the same as police actions on American soil.
As to the environmental comment, the "people's land" is only land that the people own. We, as in WE THE PEOPLE, do NOT own public land. To mine or drill for our own resources definitely deals with the general welfare. Anything illegal about the arrangement is another issue and Dan needs to prove illegality to be taken seriously.
What we see here is a difference between Constitutional interpretation (always a problem when libs are involved) as opposed to contempt for said document. Obama expressed publicly his contempt long before he was campaigning for his opportunity to pretend to be a president. The worst you can say about Bush is that you don't like how he interprets it. But contempt? No way.
Should I ask WHERE Obama expressed contempt for the Constitution, or should I just take you at your word?
You see, the problem is, you all have no respect for meanings of words or understandings of the English language. IF you find a quote where Obama says, "The sky is blue today," you appear ready and able to find contempt for the Constitution in it.
Liberalism=fascism, Liberalism=socialism, capitalist Dems=socialists, if you disagree with me on a biblical passage=you hate the Bible, up is down, good is evil.
You all are just using words as blunt instruments and not as implements of communication, so I have a hard time taking you at your word on it, thank you very much.
I guess you should ask if you don't know, or in your case, if you're going try your typcial routine of acting as if an issue already addressed hasn't been. In either case, there was a radio interview Obama did wherein he gives his opinion of how lacking the Constitution is.
You see Dan, one needn't come right out and proclaim contempt or hatred. Indeed, one can speak, and sometimes appear to act, as if one is totally in love with a document or book, yet, by his actions and agendas show just the opposite, demonstrating contempt or hatred, or provoking consequences that suggest a hatred or contempt whether or not it was actually intended.
We totally understand the meanings of words (indeed, I employ both Google and Merriam-Webster routinely during blog debates).
YOU, on the other hand, not so much. Nor do you show any capability of comprehension, even during times when I haven't actually rambled in a late-nite comment. For example, I don't recall that I have said that liberalism=fascism. But I have said that it is a degree of fascism. It is also a degree of socialism and communism which are themselves degrees of fascism. You like to spend time ragging on someone for the use of words and terms, most often used rhetorically (and then later claim you were only seeking clarification), but then you do it yourself ("laying down one's life") with reckless abandon.
As regards your opinion of the Bible, your claims of revering it have been shown to be somewhat suspect, so much so that the claim rings false. Thus, though to that feel hatred is more accurate might be over the top, it is logical based on your own words. Perhaps not reasonable, but logical. If something is not one thing, it is most often the opposite or something like it. Your words do not, in our opinion, support your claim of reverence and we've supported that opinion exhaustively. Notice here: always based on YOUR words and after all these years, if you haven't yet found words that sound better to you when repeated back, that's not our fault, it is yours. But understand we well do. If there's anyone who's credibility with words provokes problems, it would be you.
On a side note, this strikes me as more proof of your poor comprehension skills when you can't separate rhetoric from the point that provokes it. You focus on the words and not the message. You plainly ignore the context. How then can we be assured that you've ever done any different with either your study of Scripture, your understanding of conservatism (when you thought you were one), and frankly, anything else?
And getting back to terms and definitions, I don't recall any sane justification for the use of the word "fascism" when it was applied to Bush.
"Obama expressed publicly his contempt"
Can you provide me with specific information?
For example, I don't recall that I have said that liberalism=fascism. But I have said that it is a degree of fascism.
The problem, Marshall (aside from pointing out that MARK has said just that), is that by THAT measure, EVERYTHING could be a degree of fascism. And in that case, fascism would cease to have any meaning. If liberals believing in women voting is a degree of fascism, then so is the pope believing in women working out of home a degree of fascism and your pastor believing in not beating women is a degree of fascism and Mark believing in little purple unicorns... it's ALL a degree of fascism.
Hitler wasn't that bad, he was just like Dan or Mark or the pope, only to a different degree. After all, Dan, Hitler and Mark ALL have moustaches.
It's all a matter of degrees... which means it means nothing. It's a way of watering down words until they mean nothing.
You like to spend time ragging on someone for the use of words and terms, most often used rhetorically (and then later claim you were only seeking clarification), but then you do it yourself ("laying down one's life") with reckless abandon.
1. When I ask for clarification, there is no secret plot there. I'm seeking clarification. Now, when someone says something incredibly stupid (like "liberalism=fascism") I might ask the question in a smart alecky manner, because it was SUCH a stupid comment to make, but it is still a question intended to give that person a chance to try again and to clarify, "Did I REALLY mean to say something stoopid, or was that taken the wrong way?"
2. The difference between you taking a "my-way-or-no-way" interpretation of a phrase like "lay down their life" is that it is a cliche open to interpretation, whereas words are ideas with a given definition.
If "liberalism" is a degree of fascism is that the definitions are counter to one another - partial opposites.
Liberalism: a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties
Fascism: : a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
Do you not understand that these are diametrically opposed notions?
One can't simultaneously be in support of "the autonomy of the individual" AND supportive of "exalt[ing] nation and often race above the individual" - these are OPPOSITE concepts, not equal and NOT a matter of degrees.
Marshall's "Liberal": "Well, I support the rights of individuals... but I REALLY support taking away those rights, especially of minorities, and I believe in oppression of individuals, too! But still, I believe in the rights of individual..."
That makes NO SENSE because the terms are antithetical to one another.
What part of "BY Definition" are you failing to grasp?
I did find something on youtube regarding the radio interview. But it was edited and chopped up so much that I don't think it can be used as evidence to what you, Bubba, and Mark are alleging. I'd have to hear the entire interview without any editing.
Dan says, "Liberalism: a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties"
Ah, but that's NOT how you defined it on the other post on the other blog. Should I remind you what you said?
Here. I found it:
"a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties; specifically : such a philosophy that considers government as a crucial instrument for amelioration of social inequities"
Government...a crucial instrument for amelioration of social inequities...
Considering fascism is an ideology that considers government to be the most crucial instrument for amelioration of social inequities (in other words, a government that believes from each according to his ability to each according to his need, ie. socialism which equals fascism) it surely sounds like fascism to me.
"a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition"
Wow, sounds exactly like Obama's ideal of government.
Government...a crucial instrument for amelioration of social inequities...
Okay, prepare yourselves: I'm going to ask a question. It is a slightly smart alecky question with the intent to give Mark a chance to clarify himself:
Are you really coming out OPPOSED to gov't ameliorating social inequities?
And before you answer, and to help you understand, some MORE definitions:
Ameliorate: to make better or more tolerable
Social: of or relating to human society, the interaction of the individual and the group, or the welfare of human beings as members of society
inequity: injustice, unfairness
Do you think gov't ought NOT make better instances of injustice as it relates to human society and interaction?
If there is an injustice (a corporation dumping waste into a family's stream, causing the death or illness of members of the family), do you think gov't ought NOT seek to make that better?
And, even if you do, do you REALLY think that those who seek to make things better - including via gov't intervention - are by definition "fascists" - EVEN THOUGH the definition of fascism is the OPPOSITE of this?
Why do I waste my time?
I have no idea.
I think government should leave all those things up to the people. Government works best when it stays out of people's business.
So, you're an anarchist? Are you a fasco-anarchist or just a run of the mill anarchist?
When you get assaulted, you'll handle it yourself? No police needed? And when your house catches fire, no problem, you'll just take a whiz on it? And when you eat something toxic that was sold to you as "health food," well, that's okay, at least the company was free to market their poisons? And when terrorists attack NY or Oklahoma, you'll handle it yourself?
Is that what you're saying?
Oh, now you're put out, is that it, Dan? I've been asked why I waste my time, and by two visitors, why I waste my time with you specifically. But for me, I don't see it as more of a waste of time than is blogging in general. If I'm going to "waste time" on the computer, blogging is my preferred method.
"I might ask the question in a smart alecky manner..."
Yet when I get snarky, I'm lacking God's grace. Again you point out that the rules are different for you. Thank you for copping to that.
As to definitions and degrees: Counting liberalism as a lesser form of fascism does not water down the word "fascism". It distinguishes it from all out fascism. In the same way that slapping another, or even yelling at another is violence, it does not water down the word "violence". Even more so, there are different degrees of battery. I could just slap you, or I could beat you to a bloody pulp which would send you to intensive care. I've committed battery in each case. I've subjected you to violence in each case. What's more, you could have been threatening my life in each case or simply bumping into me. Degrees, but all battery and all violence.
In the same way liberalism is, shall I say, the least harmful or least tangible degree of fascism. You apply it to silly examples that alone do not constitute anything resembling fascism. Mark listed those things along with many others that lead to one fascist regime and compared that to liberals of today.
In addition, your definition of liberalism (whichever one you're using now) doesn't mean anything with regards to the exact manifestation of those pretty sentiments. What do they look like in practice and how do they impact society? Well, more ofen than not, they lead to impositions that are fascistic in nature to those upon whom they are imposed. Whether the regulations are useful and agreed to or outright oppressive to a business' or individual's ability to prosper is besides the point here.
Regarding regulations and ameliorating anything, that's what laws are for. If a company is found to be purposely causing harm or doing so by negligence, there are laws to deal with that, as there should be. But too often liberal notions of "ameliorating" go way too far and indeed, well beyond any reasonable interpretation of Constitutional limits.
Case in point is Obama's leaning on BP---his shakedown. That is not within his Constitutional powers. It's a judicial matter to force a company to compensate those they've harmed and BP had already begun doing just that with big bucks settlements already being dealt. BP were well within their rights to tell Barry to go pound sand and take his false and pathetic attempts to pretend he's a strong leader out on the road and add a few musical numbers to spice it up.
Indeed, the BP disaster is a prime example of the results of gov't trying to ameleorate. Now they think they ameleorate the consequences of their regulations.
Dan:
"Should I ask WHERE Obama expressed contempt for the Constitution, or should I just take you at your word?"
I think you should abstain from commenting, because I've been emphatic in my request that you stay out of my way.
I want nothing to do with you. I think that you're a hypocrite and a liar, and your behavior is so pathological that there's nothing profitable in my continuing even to pretend to extend to you any benefit of the doubt.
Even here, you pray that we might "show proper respect for disagreement within this great Republic as is due and appropriate" while you attack us as unpatriotic and anti-American in the very same comment.
You can't even avoid hypocrisy within a single sentence.
"Calling a president or administration a 'tyranny' simply because you disagree with some policies (no death, no murders, no overthrown of democracy, no invasions of other nations unprovoked, no torture) waters down the term 'tyranny,' and to do so for ugly partisan reasons is just, well, ugly and petty."
That sentiment would almost be honorable if it didn't have the cheap swipe at Bush, but you just couldn't help yourself.
Now, you're back to playing word games, acting as if opposition to a welfare state requires anarchism, and acting as if one cannot oppose the nationalization of banks and the auto industry without also opposing a criminal justice system that enforces laws protecting property rights.
Your approach does make me wonder about one item in your list of "Real world examples of tyrannical states."
Stalin's USSR
The USSR.
The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
Dan, we both know what the word "republic" means, and the word is incompatible with tyranny.
There's no way Stalin's USSR could be an example of an oppressive, dictatorial, autocratic regime, by the very nature of republics.
If it's possible that the Soviet reference to small-r republican government was a lie, that opens the floodgate to all sorts of possiblities.
Like the possiblity that modern statists who call themselves "liberals" do so inaccurately, because their political philosophy is entirely at odds with the classical liberalism of Adam Smith and Edmund Burke.
And the possiblity that not everyone is telling the truth when he insists that he's a Christian who loves the Bible and follows Christ's teachings -- especially if he denies the reality of God's judgment, the historicity of the Passover, and the divine origin of even the difficult commands in the Old Testament; if he is ambivalent about whether the Bible teaches the Virgin Birth or whether the bodily Resurrection is essential; and if his beliefs are in opposition to Christ's teachings regarding the authority of Scripture to the smallest penstroke, the reason God made us male and female, the reality of Christ's coming judgment, and the reason and consequences of His death -- going beyond denying that He died for our sins, to deny that He even instituted the commemoration of His death.
But since we know that things are never mislabelled, and that George Orwell was off his rocker to be concerned about euphamism and newspeak, we must cross Stalin's USSR off the list of real-world examples of tyranny.
Stalin was the leader of a union of republics. Definitionally, he couldn't have been a tyrant.
Now that we've cleared that up, if you could show enough character to respect my request to leave me alone, I'd appreciate it.
Goofiness abounds. Dan comented to Mark right before I posted my last, but I want to take a few of his points myself.
"When you get assaulted, you'll handle it yourself?"
In most cases. In those cases where the assault is actually getting physical (assault is sometimes physical contact as in sexual assault for example) I would certainly not wait for someone to help while getting smacked about.
"No police needed?"
Not always. Nor are they the best choice in every situation.
But really, police and fire are local and conservatives don't expect that there should be NO gov't, but only gov't doing what goverments are Constitutionally mandated to do. Most things, such as food-poisoning, are handled better through the courts and not through legislation. Of course, as I said earlier, there are laws in place to deal with issues between businesses and their customers, and one's lawyers can handle the rest. If a company is known for, say, bad food that poisons people, they'll go out of business through word-of-mouth bad advertising. Don't your reccommend and warn against businesses with which you deal? Isn't that enough to you to know someone you know liked or didn't like a place? Do you really need the feds to stick their noses in it?
But at least you're getting the idea about what the extreme of a right-winger is. Fortunately, we're not likely to allow NO GOV'T. We can never get to complete no gov't by our actions because we better understand the role of the ideal governmental situation. But libs are more than willing to usher in way too much gov't.
Mark,
Save that for another blog.
Bubba,
Actually, Dan was aiming that question at me, I believe. It referred to a statement I made regarding a radio interview when Obama was still an IL senator protecting the rights of gang-bangers to murder in the name of their gang, while restricting the right of a citizen to use "self-defense" after shooting an intruder if the citizen lives in a town that outlaws the ownership of handguns.
Sorry, Art. But it was just too good a straight line to pass up.
Dan, yes, I want to handle it myself.
I want as little government interference as possible. Naturally, there are some things that require government help, but those things should be kept to a minimum and used sparingly. Other than that, I expect, nay, demand, hands off!
I don't want the government taking my hard earned money and handing it over to criminals, lazy people, doctors who kill babies, foreign despots, the United Socialist Nations, environmentalists, PETA, all sorts of radical nut groups, and Yolanda, who sits on her fat ass in her front yard all day, collecting her welfare checks and complaining that the government doesn't give her even more, while her no-account sons deal crack on the street corners.
I want my government to encourage hard work, ingenuity, capitalism, and personal responsibility, and then have the common sense and logic to stand back and let the free market rise or fall on it's own.
If that makes me an anarchist, then I will wear the title proudly, knowing that I'm part of the solution, and not the problem.
Mark:
I was the first one here to observe that Obama holds the Constitution in contempt.
In the very next comment, Marty asked for specific examples of this contempt.
(I like Marty more than most of the people with whom she routinely agrees, but it's an idiotic question. It's not as if the U.S. Constitution gives the federal government the power to take over private industries and require individuals to purchase private goods or services. The document strictly limits the federal government to its enumerated powers, and those sort of activities simply cannot be defended as enumerated powers, or else the federal government is pratically unlimited in its powers.)
(Besides, if Obama was a stalwart defender of the Constitution, radical statists like Dan wouldn't be orgasmic over him. They apparently consider his nods to the document to be the same sort of Alinskyite deception as his claim that marriage is between a man and a woman: they don't smear him as a bigot for his supposed stand on marriage, and they don't attack him for nominating Supreme Court Justices who sound -- completely implausibly -- like a Roberts or Alito, because they know it's all a charade.)
IMMEDIATELY after Marty's comment and before you weighed in, Dan attempted to answer her question TO ME, and in doing so he weighed in on my comment.
He asserted that Obama has shown contempt for the Constitution only "in many areas where Obama has continued Bush policies," and he proved my point that the Left's usual litany of charges against Bush has little to do with a real concern for the Constitution.
The Constitution doesn't extend the protections it ensures for Americans to Afghani terrorists who are being held as prisoners of war, and it's worth noting here that Dan objects to Obama's "giving passes" to oil companies even though he just strong-armed BP into creating a slush fund that his administration will manage.
Just as concerns for due process appear when discussing the death penalty but not abortion, I think it's clear that Dan Trabue doesn't give a shit about due process for companies who do business with the United States, but he wants to make damn sure that foreign terrorists are extended every possible protection.
(Andrew McCarthy has just published a book on the phenomenon of the Left's defense of jihadists and the Left's simlutaneous assault on our traditional culture of freedom, and here his thesis applies.)
Really, asking Dan about the Constitution is like asking him about the Bible. He doesn't understand either document, and he doesn't care about their actual contents; he only likes to invoke the documents to advance his real religious faith in progressive politics, and so any comments on either document isn't going to be about the text so much as his agenda.
The more relevant point, Mark, is that I don't think his comments have been limited to your claims about Obama's obvious contempt for the Constitution. He doesn't mind discussing points I've raised, and he's not steering clear of me.
I'm not the only one who finds discussions with Dan completely unprofitable, and I'm not the only one who's asked him to back off, but as with Stan at his blog, Dan seems incapable of honoring the requests of people with whom he disagrees.
I commented first in this thread, and, until these replies, I made damn sure to avoid commenting on what he wrote. I wish he would avoid chiming in on what I write.
IMMEDIATELY after Marty's comment and before you weighed in, Dan attempted to answer her question TO ME, and in doing so he weighed in on my comment.
Get over it, Bucko. I was speaking to Marty. And later I was addressing a point from Marshall.
The world, unfortunately, does not revolve around you, my friend.
Relax and move on with your life. And see what you can do to quit fixating on me so much. People will talk.
As to y'all's comments about not needing the police or fire fighters, etc, well, fortunately, you all don't get to decide. We ARE a gov't, run by We the People.
This land IS our land. Not the corporations', not the gov't's, but ultimately God's and, then, we have responsibility for tending it and here in the US, we do that collectively via our various local gov'ts and federal gov't. We DO need some coordination and we DO best to work together to take care of the common wealth. We aren't an anarchy, we WON'T abide some crazy Wild West vigilantism, might makes right hubris.
So, I welcome you all to join the rest of us in this imperfect but great experiment called the US. You all lost this last election. If you want to change things, make your case.
Just know that if you TRULY want to communicate IN ENGLISH, then you'll sound more rational using standard English definitions of words.
Otherwise, you just sound like crazy men spouting gibberish.
Some questions that remained unanswered...
1. Do you think gov't ought NOT make better instances of injustice as it relates to human society and interaction?
2. If there is an injustice (a corporation dumping waste into a family's stream, causing the death or illness of members of the family), do you think gov't ought NOT seek to make that better?
3. And, even if you do, do you REALLY think that those who seek to make things better - including via gov't intervention - are by definition "fascists" - EVEN THOUGH the definition of fascism is the OPPOSITE of this?
4. Liberalism: a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties
Fascism: : a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
Do you not understand that these are diametrically opposed notions?
5. One can't simultaneously be in support of "the autonomy of the individual" AND supportive of "exalt[ing] nation and often race above the individual" - these are OPPOSITE concepts, not equal and NOT a matter of degrees.
What part of "BY Definition" are you failing to grasp?
6. Should I ask WHERE Obama expressed contempt for the Constitution, or should I just take you at your word?
If you truly hope to make your case, in addition to learning to speak in English or re-define common words when you misuse them, you'll also have to learn to answer questions.
As it is, I see NOTHING to suggest that Obama has contempt for the Constitution (well, beyond the examples I gave - examples of him continuing Bush doctrine) and I see no logical reason to support your alternative-reality hunches on standard English usage or what other people think.
Dan, you addressed a topic I raised, and so I think it's dishonest to act as if you're staying out of my way just because your comments were directed to other people.
(It's as dishonest as focusing on the dictionary definition of liberalism: it begs the question of whether the definition applies to statists like Obama. We know that, going by the dictionary definition of what a republic is, Stalin couldn't have been a dictator because he led a group of republics.)
(And, it's as dishonest as focusing on the LEAST controversial examples of government action to justify your entire political philosophy -- to focus on fire fighters when you support a government that intrudes upon basic economic rights. If one were to examine the complete array of policies you support, a task that would require your being honest about your beliefs, I'm confident that your belief in our working "collectively via our various local gov'ts and federal gov't" would entail action that conflicts with the autonomy of the individual, to say the least.)
It's not a fixation to ask you to leave me alone, to REALLY leave me alone.
"I like Marty more than most of the people with whom she routinely agrees, but it's an idiotic question"
Sigh. That wasn't very helpful to me Bubba. I am trying to understand. I guess I just need to study the Constitution. But I never was a very good student especially if I found the subject a bit boring. Reading the Constitution is boring. I was hoping you would just give me a brief example rather than just making the blanket statement.
"It's not as if the U.S. Constitution gives the federal government the power to take over private industries"
Is that what you think the Obama Administration has done?
I decided to put this here rather than in a separate post. This is an example of what Mark had in mind as opposed to the silly question Dan had in regards to the level of gov't intervention in human affairs. It's what happens when people just do what needs to be done. That's the best way and more people need to realize that fact.
I just came home from our church coffee house meeting. During this time, I was reminded of how we're all in this together.
I think Mark, Marshall and others sometimes think I hate them or that I'm trying to tear them down. Perhaps sometimes that's too close to being true, but not in general. I just am trying to represent my position without it being misrepresented. I'm just trying to explain my position in a way they can appreciate, if not agree with.
Still, too often the discussions have sharp edges to them. I just wanted to offer a song for my brothers with whom I sometimes disagree, as a reminder that, however I might disagree with how they represent some people, that I love them. I'm sure, for all their faults and misunderstandings, that they are only intending to try to defend what they think is honorable and good.
From one of my brothers at the coffee house tonight, to my brothers I've never met, a song for you.
Peace.
I'll give it a 30. I would have given it a 10, if it didn't have a beat. But, it's hard to dance to, so that's why I can't rate it higher.
P.S. Why didn't you post one of your own songs? I like your music better.
Marty, in June 2009, the federal government became the majority stakeholder of General Motors. I'm not sure how one would describe that fact other than as a takeover of a private industry, and I'm certain that no description of that fact can be made to fit into any reasonable interpretation of the Constitution.
The Constitution is not a long document, and it's not a difficult document to understand. There are details over which genuine disagreement is possible, but the broad principles are quite easy to understand.
Those principles include a federal government that is limited to those powers that are explicitly granted to it, beginning with those powers enumerated in Article I, Section 8, and continuing with the only legal way for the federal government's power to expand: amendments to the Constitution.
I reiterate that I like you, Marty, but if you don't understand the Constitution, you shouldn't presume that all major political philosophies in this country are compatible with the document.
"I reiterate that I like you, Marty, but if you don't understand the Constitution, you shouldn't presume that all major political philosophies in this country are compatible with the document."
I haven't presumed anything Bubba. I merely asked you to give me a specific example of how Obama had contempt for the Constitution. Now you have. And I am studying it. I don't see much in the Constitution regarding corporations, however, so this could be open to interpretation. What about the bank bailouts of the Bush Administration? I am aware that corporations have received certain rights. One such case, and perhaps the first case that expanded their rights was the Santa Clara County vs Southern Pacific Railroad which essentially gave the RR personhood rights, if I'm understanding it correctly. I'm not sure how this relates, if a all, to the constitutional debate however.
Why didn't you post one of your own songs? I like your music better.
Thank you, Mark. This just happened to be the song I was listening to when I thought of you all and how we're all in this together, cheesy as that may sound.
Blessings.
Bubba regarding Dan:
"I want nothing to do with you. I think that you're a hypocrite and a liar"......
"And the possiblity that not everyone is telling the truth when he insists that he's a Christian who loves the Bible and follows Christ's teachings"...
Sometimes we need to be reminded, as Dan rightly points out, that we are all in this together. I mean no disrespect to any one here, but I would like to share something that I think is important for all of us here to realize.
Mike Slaughter sums it up best in his book "Change the World", Chapter 2 "Inclusive vs Exclusive" under the heading "God of Grace":
"Self-righteousness results in spiritual blindness that makes us oblivious to our own brokenness and magnifies the failures of others. Righteousness is not an earned status. It is the result of God's redemptive work in the cross. When we judge other people, we demean the redemptive work of Jesus and make it our own. Jesus warned of the dangers when broken people try to separate the wheat from the weeds, "because while you are pulling the weeds, you may uproot the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest" (Matt 13:29-30). This is not affirmation for 'anything goes' immoral behavior. In our human brokenness we are just not qualifited to sort it out."
Obviously I need to clear up a few things here. Some about protocols regarding posting comments, and some about comments themselves.
I will start by addressing the situation with Bubba. Bubba's one of the finest debaters I've encountered in the blogosphere. I happy that he chooses to pop in to my humble little blog and add his intelligence and knowledge of Christianity and conservatism, as well as current events in general, and hope he alwsy continues to do so as the opportunity presents itself.
But I must say that I insist upon he option to comment on any topic to open to all who care to do so. This holds despite the originator of a topic, issue or tangent that takes us in another direction. Anyone is free to ignore a direct question from someone else, but that someone else still has the freedom to ask. He can draw his own conclusions, as can others reading the exchange (such as it is). I don't believe it is reasonable to assume that because person "A" first spoke on a specific point, that he can then decide who can comment in rebuttal or question person "A"'s position, or who cannot. Person A should simply ignore anyone with whom person A no longer desires to engage, as if the other person never commented. This will eventually (and probably quickly) cause the other person to give up and move on. At the same time, should that other person comment in a manner that provokes a response from person A, person A can do so without a direct engagement with the other person.
I totally understand Bubba's feelings regarding certain other commenters, but it does no good to seek to run that person off. Ignore. That's best. What I fear is that Bubba may no longer choose to comment here and I wouldn't like that.
I also wouldn't like opponents to leave me with only those who agree. There's no fun in that for me. I like to mix it up. And as long as opponents don't get truly nasty, profane or obscene, they are free to be as stupid, senseless, uninformed, twisted and without basis and do so in as deceitful and intellectually dishonest manner as they choose. No one is fooled by it anyway, so I don't see any real harm.
The next part is coming up, well, next---
This discussion on definitions is getting goofy. One cannot make the case that our usage of words is dissolving their meaning by applying those words to examples we wouldn't use. Dan makes such attempts routinely. To say that we misuse the term fascism or tyranny because he insists on only extreme examples of the words is bad enough. But to then insult us with his own examples ("well, then I could use it to mean XY & Z and the word won't mean anything!") is a dishonest tactic.
Take the word tyranny. Dan doesn't like our application of the word to the current admin because we aren't oppressed enough to warrant the use of the word. I guess people aren't dying enough. Well, if death is required, then Obama's support for abortion anywhere, anytime, for anyone for any reason should cover that requirement. Tyranny doesn't have to be so oppressive to exist, however. Mark referred to "soft tyranny" and that just aligns with my statement regarding degrees. Where does Obama get off firing a corporate employee? GM should have told Obama to take a flying leap off a short pier. Barry's action was tyrannical to think his "pay grade" gives him such authority.
Likewise fascism and it's relation to modern liberalism. Any dictionary will have a less malevolent definition. But modern liberals don't really fit that definition and even when they try to, the consequences of their policy proposals smack of fascism and tyranny in the effect they have on business as well as individual asperations.
Thus, our use of such words as tyranny and fascism are appropriate based on those consequences, as well as on the power that this admin and the center left politicians believe about themselves and their power.
more coming----
Regarding Dan's July 11 1:06AM comment:
"I think Mark, Marshall and others sometimes think I hate them or that I'm trying to tear them down."
Can't say it's true of everyone on the right, but for most of us, this has never been the case whatsoever. We simply think you're positions and beliefs are, to be kind, wrong.
What would be even worse, would be to assume that there is hatred from us toward any opponent on a freakin' blog. There have been some over the years for whom I believe I could easily work up a good hate based on their attitudes when posting comments, but that's unlikely because I simply do not hate. It's against my religion to hate people.
It is NOT against my religion to hate stupid ideas, opinions or positions. I do NOT have to respect opinions, ideas or positions, but only the people who present them, and even then, only so far as every human being is born and endowed by his Creator with a right to a basic level of respect BECAUSE he is a human being. The rest he has to earn. Stupid ideas, opinions and positions do not entitle anyone to respect beyond that basic amount. The more stupid the opinion is (in my opinion), the more I have the right (and duty) to point out without fear just how stupid it is. I show respect to the person by explaining why it is as stupid as it is.
One thing I find disrespectful and insulting, is that while in the midst of such explanations, I am reminded of Christian virtues I don't believe I've forgotten. This little link to the song is another example of it, and a small part of why Dan's style seems so dishonest and disingenuous. I don't need to be constantly sweet-talked while debating. My skin is not so thin as to require that my opponents be reminded that we are all God's chilluns. I don't pretend to a saintly demeanor and a false humility. Let's just get to the point without the posturing. What's most frustrating is that this tactic is employed when no other response is possible to counter a point made, and usually in a one-way direction as the feeling on this side is these little ploys, like questioning our use of words, are dishonest distractions and misdirections.
In any case, perhaps it is YOU Dan that IS feeling hatred and now you're feeling guilty. Personally, I never thought to consider you might be hating ME at all. I certainly don't hate you, though I freely admit I'm not down with your beliefs, your positions or how you try to defend them. I hope you understand the distinction. And I'll take a liberty here and suggest that even if Bubba thinks you a rank liar, that doesn't mean he's hating you either.
still more to come---
This one is for Marty's last. You say you mean no disrespect, but unfortunately you failed to avoid it with the presentation of that Slaughter piece. Look at that first sentence:
"Self-righteousness results in spiritual blindness that makes us oblivious to our own brokenness and magnifies the failures of others."
This sentiment sounds nice on the surface, but it is making the kind of assumptions about people that one should be loath to make. One always risks an accusation about being self-righteous for merely speaking the truth. That's a defense mechanism popping into gear when that truth exposes one's faults, faults one isn't keen to correct. The insult is compounded by suggesting that the truth teller ignores his own faults, simply by speaking out against an obvious infraction. I suppose it might be true for some, but the use of the quotation here is indeed insulting because I can think of no time when anyone on my side of the issues has professed perfection, a sinless character or anything close to it.
Such admonitions are indeed an affirmation of less than Christian behavior and more to the point, it is a thinly veiled alternative for coming right out and saying "don't you dare try to correct or point out my shortcomings."
You must always remember that this is a medium whereby people run their opinions up the flag pole to see who salutes. Those who don't aren't saying they're flawless, but only that they're position is superior at worst. What you've done is no different than what I've said in the above comment regarding Dan and his calls for civility and grace when the reality is that putting forth a bad opinion as a legitimate option for improving the world is graceless and uncivil when based on bad reasoning and interpretations.
Now to Dan's unanswered questions next---
Marshall,
Point taken.
"1. Do you think gov't ought NOT make better instances of injustice as it relates to human society and interaction?"
Rephrase this question please.
"2. If there is an injustice (a corporation dumping waste into a family's stream, causing the death or illness of members of the family), do you think gov't ought NOT seek to make that better?"
We have something of which you may have heard called, "the courts", whereby people can seek recompense for damages sustained by such actions. One hundred times the laws already on the books will not prevent the truly evil from perpetrating harmful activities. But those regs WILL unjustly restrict the ability of the law-abiding and socially conscious businesses from prospering, thereby harming the community it serves and seeks to employ.
"3. And, even if you do, do you REALLY think that those who seek to make things better - including via gov't intervention - are by definition "fascists" - EVEN THOUGH the definition of fascism is the OPPOSITE of this?"
Considering the true impact and consequences of such attempts by those left of center (who make such attempts more far often than the other side), yes. It is especially true because they intend to do what they do despite the outcry from those who can plainly see those consequences as being more likely than not. What's more, their attempts are rarely made without some unjust cost to those who won't benefit in the least because of those consequences.
"4. Liberalism: a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties"
First of all, I think this is YOUR definition of liberalism. But let's look at one factor with which both the founders AND the Bible would disagree. That would be "the essential goodness of the human race". This flies in the face of the founder's beliefs for certain, and without question the teachings of the Bible about the nature of man or, as Paul calls it, Natural Man. The founders realized the shortcomings of human nature and crafted their documents and governmental notions accordingly. And what are "political liberties" anyway? More to the point, as I said earlier, the left's definition of liberalism, and yours in particular, doesn't match liberalism in practice in the least and the consequences of what the left seeks to accomplish results in various levels of tyranny and fascism.
"5. One can't simultaneously be in support of "the autonomy of the individual" AND supportive of "exalt[ing] nation and often race above the individual" - these are OPPOSITE concepts, not equal and NOT a matter of degrees."
Once again, talk is cheap and what you think you're doing as a leftist and what is actually happening as a result of your actions results in the very consequences you think you oppose.
next---
"6. Should I ask WHERE Obama expressed contempt for the Constitution, or should I just take you at your word?"
Totally asked and answered. Marty found the interview to which I referred where his contempt is openly expressed and his policies of are a laundry list of examples. I've also demonstrated your poor understanding of what is Constitutionally acceptable and how Bush was not outside the bounds of his Constitutionally described powers.
Thank you Marty.
Marshall...
First of all, I think this is YOUR definition of liberalism.
Merriam Webster. Standard English.
...But let's look at one factor with which both the founders AND the Bible would disagree. That would be "the essential goodness of the human race".
Me, too. It's one reason I don't consider myself a liberal. I just acknowledge that most of your type of folk would consider me a liberal. Not that I'm afraid of the liberal tag, it's just that I don't meet the parameters for being a liberal, if that includes a belief in the essential goodness of the human race.
I believe people are people. Good and bad. Capable of good and bad. Each and every one of us. Thus, I don't believe in the essential goodness of humanity.
as I said earlier, the left's definition of liberalism, and yours in particular, doesn't match liberalism in practice in the least...
Then your problem is not with liberalism, but with those who fail to live up to liberalism's belief (which I DO share) in personal liberty. You, then, AGREE with liberalism (by definition), it's those who reject liberalism's principles you disagree with.
Right?
and the consequences of what the left seeks to accomplish results in various levels of tyranny and fascism
Ditto. Liberalism, BY DEFINITION is the OPPOSITE of fascism and tyranny, or at least diametrically opposed to them. Your problem is not with liberalism - by definition - it is with tyranny and fascism.
If a KKK fella claims to be a conservative Christian Republican and proceeds to attempt to kill and oppress non-whites, does that mean conservatism, Christianity or the GOP embrace fascism and tyranny? Or is it a problem with those individuals claiming those traditions but who act in opposition to some of their ideals?
I will state again the obvious: Neither conservatism nor liberalism equates to fascism or tyranny. It would be skewed versions of either of these ideals/systems to embrace fascism or tyranny.
By definition.
On most of your other points, then, we disagree a bit more.
talk is cheap and what you think you're doing as a leftist and what is actually happening as a result of your actions results in the very consequences you think you oppose.
Then do me a favor, please. Show me anywhere where I embrace tyranny or fascism or where my actions result in consequences that are tyrannical or fascist. I'd suggest you probably have misunderstood my position or that you have an unsupported notion of what the consequences would be, but I'm willing to learn if you'll point to a position with such consequences.
Now, if you merely point to something like "You support environmental regulations to keep people from polluting, and that will hurt businesses, in effect, taking their liberties away..." Then I would think you have a misguided understanding of the importance of regulations.
IF I support a regulation that requires a company NOT to dump toxins in the water, it WILL result in a loss of liberty for that company, if you want to look at it that way. But it's no different than taking away the "liberty" of the drunk to drive or the abusive man to punch his wife.
I support laws that work to prevent unjustified harm to another person. Supporting these type of laws is not tyranny, just reasonable law-making.
I would think you would agree at least in theory, even if we might disagree on the point of what is a reasonable amount of regulation to prevent harm.
That is, you DO agree that it is within gov't's purview to create laws that prevent harm, right?
Which gets to this...
Dan: "1. Do you think gov't ought NOT make better instances of injustice as it relates to human society and interaction?"
Rephrase this question please.
Do you think gov't ought not work to stop injustice, as defined by MW as... "violation of right or of the rights of another" - shouldn't gov't create laws that outlaw causing harm to life and liberty?
Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose and it's not unreasonable to expect gov't to create laws that prohibit you swinging your fist into my nose?
As to this...
One thing I find disrespectful and insulting, is that while in the midst of such explanations, I am reminded of Christian virtues I don't believe I've forgotten. This little link to the song is another example of it, and a small part of why Dan's style seems so dishonest and disingenuous.
I was merely trying to share a moment that was meaningful to me and one that I hoped would bring some sense of the love I have for you as a fellow human being and brother in Christ. I don't think it is ever a bad thing to remind ourselves (MYself) that we're in this thing together and to try to keep disagreements in balance with respect and grace.
The Bible tells us...
Aim for perfection, listen to my appeal, be of one mind, live in peace...
2 Cor 13
Be devoted to one another in brotherly love. Honor one another above yourselves... Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position...
If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.
Rom 12
Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God. Show proper respect to everyone: Love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honor the king.
1 Pet 2
And many words to that effect. I was merely offering a reminder for myself and anyone else who wishes to consider it, based upon a moment of worship I had. I hoped to share a bit of joy, naught else. I hoped to share a bit of hope for disagreements to be clearly disagreements founded upon, first and foremost, love and respect.
I apologize if I came across as dishonest or disingenuous.
"Do you think gov't ought NOT make better instances of injustice as it relates to human society and interaction?"
It seems that you would limit the purview of the govt in righting wrongs to only those instances where it not use force or violence.
i.e. You would seem to be fine with the govt. "righting" an economic "wrong" by mandating some sort of redistribution of the wealth of those you consider rich, but I suspect you would be less enthusiastic about a policeman who shoots a criminal to save the lives of a hostage.
The sermon yesterday was on Christian attitudes towards war and peace. I think I might post some excerpts because the pastor made some good points about the different possible Christian positions.
Craig...
i.e. You would seem to be fine with the govt. "righting" an economic "wrong" by mandating some sort of redistribution of the wealth of those you consider rich
It seems you have misunderstood my position(s). Allow me to clarify a little (although I'm unsure to what you refer in your hunch above)...
1. I consider myself rich, for what it's worth.
2. I'm not mandating any redistribution of wealth.
3. I AM okay with taxation. That's how our system works.
4. I AM okay with laws that prohibit or regulate actions that cause harm. Drilling for oil, for instance. Drilling for oil offshore, for instance. Digging for coal, for instance. All of these have great potential for harm and, IF we're going to allow them at all, they ought to be well regulated.
Similarly, drunk driving has a great potential for harm. I'm okay with regulating it (I'm okay with banning it all together, as we have attempted to do). This does not limit an individual's "freedom" to drink, as that isn't harming anyone but him, but it IS limiting the chance of him harming others while inebriated. As is only logical.
Do you agree that "restricting" the freedom of the drunk so that he can't drive is reasonable?
Do you agree that "restricting" the liberty of a coal company to dump toxins in our water is reasonable?
These are the sorts of rules and laws I'm speaking of.
but I suspect you would be less enthusiastic about a policeman who shoots a criminal to save the lives of a hostage.
It would be a tragedy and perhaps quite risky, but if it were a last chance effort, I would not criticize the police officer for doing so.
It would depend upon the circumstances. If the criminal has killed three people and is threatening to kill a fourth any second now and the police have a situation where they can "safely" shoot the shooter without endangering the hostage or other innocent civilians, then perhaps that would be called for.
So, perhaps you have misunderstood my positions? If you have some specific rule or situation that you'd like me to address, I'd be glad to, if it's not too off topic. I simply have never called for redistribution of wealth.
"Marty found the interview to which I referred where his contempt is openly expressed and his policies of are a laundry list of examples.":
I don't know whether Obama was doing any such thing Marshall. Whoever put that up on YouTube took everything out of context... cut and pasted phrases...so without hearing the entire interview it is hard for me to determine what you guys have alleged. If you would like to point me in the direction of the entire interview that would be helpful.
And while I understood the point you made, in this situation, I still believe what Slaughter said to be valid, especially with regard to demeaming others.
Marty,
Slaughter's comments might have some validity, but I don't think they're relevant here, as none of us match the type of person to which he is referring.
As to the Obama interview, I'll try to find a more complete version if one is available, but please provide a link to what you've found. I've never heard a complete version, but only those points he's made that the presenter had found to be contemptuous of the Constitution. I agreed with the presenter. If what you had is the same 'snippets', post a link and I can explain why he's showing that contempt.
Marty,
Better than my own attempt to explain, I found a explanation by Mark Levin from before the election of Obama. He talks about the same interview that I referenced. It is important to note that the contempt is in how radically he views the Constitution, its purpose, its intent, as well as the mindset of the authors who he clearly doesn't understand. His words demonstrate that his look at history is through the lens of his socialist philosophies, rather than an objective spirit of learning and discovery by which one comes to understand in order to properly form an opinion upon which one can form a philosophy. That is, his he looks back with an opinion in hand, rather than looking at what was and then from that look form the opinion.
This is similar to Dan's belief that I look at Biblical perspectives on human sexuality from a cultural bias, rather than what I actually do, which is form my position on human sexuality AFTER studying the Bible for guidance. Obama looks at our founding through his cultural bias of socialism/marxism. This perspective can't help but leave him contemptuous of a great document than doesn't serve his marxist sensibilities as he believes it should.
Note also Levin's use of the term "tyranny" and how he applies it. Tyranny doesn't start at the fatally oppressive stage. It begins in a more subtle manner, convincing someone or some people that its intentions are benign and beneficial.
Obama looks at our founding through his cultural bias of socialism/marxism.
Nice words, but do you have any support for such a position? Obama's actual words, not Mark Levin (whom I just can't take seriously at all as anything other than an angry unfunny comedian)?
I hope you can understand that if all you have are various people offering opinions as to why when Obama says X, he actually means Purple Cheese with nothing much to support it, that I/we just have a hard time taking any such claims seriously.
It's not intended as an offense to you or yours - nor is it a defense of Obama, actually - just a fidelity to/concern for truth and accuracy in communication.
Dan,
As I am already out of time for now, I can only object to your poor use of terms. You can rely on dictionary definitions, but I am speaking of liberals as they the term relates to current political movements. Neither term of liberal OR conservative is used exactly as a dictionary might define them, or as the terms have been used only 100 years ago, when I may have been termed "liberal". But there is no mistake by anyone who would put YOU in the liberal category by today's common usage of the term.
You use the dictionary definition to defend or distance yourself, depending on the specific incident or point in debate. This is another distraction when 90% of the population would understand what is meant by the term.
I also object to your routine use of extreme situations, situations already well covered by law and regulation, to imply that the right would be content in the knowledge that their positions lead to death and disease. This is the type of slander that you employ while admonishing us for slander we never actually put forth.
But as for polluters, I ask again: How many laws and regulations does it take to prevent polluters from polluting? The answer is there is no number, for just as in gun laws, law-breakers don't care about laws. So the result is a more oppressive situation for law-abiders. Libs like yourself don't want to understand true human nature and how left to themselves, people will handle the situation.
In the case of a corporation harming people through negligence or willful disregard, the court is where such restitution and correction will best take place. Public outcry against such practices alert others which leads to people and companies taking their business to more responsible options. Business constantly adjusts to the prevailing concerns of the consumer as is seen by all the companies that have developed more environmentally friendly products. The demand changes and business changes to meet the demand. That's how it's supposed to work and that's what the gov't is supposed to protect and encourage.
To use laws such as drunk driving laws as examples of what liberal political policies bring to the table is BS. It is not indicative of the type of policies that the right opposes and that is so damaging to our national interests of the manner that liberal policies perpetuate.
Yet, drunk driving laws can be used to explain the problem with liberal ideas of how to "fix" problems. I don't know if you've ever seen a chart that explains what is required to get a given individual to .08 Blood Alcohol Content (BAC). I used to service a branch of Mothers Against Drunk Drivers and they had a chart on the wall which I asked the woman there to explain. It's really, really easy to get to that level. So easy, in fact, that for the vast majority of the population, they'd never know that they can be so sober and still lose their driver's licenses. These laws came about after years of lax enforcement and easy judges absolving real drunks for a few thousand dollars in fines when the loss of the license or imprisonment was a more reasonable sentence. These drunk bastards were allowed to continue driving until they killed someone. Eventually people said, ENOUGH, and oppressive drunk driving laws were created. Now, responsible people can be arrested for, not being drunk behind the wheel, but for having a certain level of alcohol in their systems.
Before anyone gets goofy, I'm not saying that one's abilities might not be impaired by such low levels, because I'm guessing (hoping really) that there are studies that show enough people are impaired. The issue is whether or not that level of impairment is greater than still being groggy on the way to work in the morning, or distracted by a bad day on the way home. The point here is that some who are still more than capable can be treated like the real drunks who were allowed to drive after being caught for being REALLY drunk.
Like the kids in class who lose a privilege because of one idiot kid who routinely abuses the privilege, lib intentions to correct problems ALWAYS lead to good people being denied more of their freedoms. It's tyrannical, it's controlling, and it's fascistic.
Conservative attempts to improve life do not generally have these types of results.
Dan,
Enough with the crap. You are insisting on only specific words being spoken in order to make a point when rarely is that possible. You want us to reproduce Obama saying, "I HAVE CONTEMPT FOR THE CONSTITUTION" and without those words nothing we offer is credible. That's absolutely childish and inane. Obama's words in the interview exerpts ARE the words that support my position, just as your words about Scripture support the notion that you don't truly revere it. Once again, words are not enough anyway. Actions must match the words in order for the words to have credibility. In Obama's case, his words in the interview, particularly those like "redistributive" demonstrate the socialist prism through which he views the Constitution and its authors. What the hell more do you need? His policy proposals? Well, they also lend credence to the position. They prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt to anyone with an objective, honest mind.
Also, Levin is quite knowledgable on the subject of law and the Constitution. More so than the phoney Constitutional professor for which you cast your vote. But in typical lib fashion, you blow off my use of him as a source because of his style and politics rather than respond to his charges. So. Typical.
You want us to reproduce Obama saying, "I HAVE CONTEMPT FOR THE CONSTITUTION" and without those words nothing we offer is credible. That's absolutely childish and inane.
True. Fortunately, you and I agree that we don't have to come up with exact words. But we do need to come up with something beyond, "I don't like the way he interprets that point," perhaps we agree upon that?
As to Obama's actual words, am I missing something? I still haven't seen any actual quotes from him in this thread, or a link to a quote. A little help?
Marshall...
I also object to your routine use of extreme situations, situations already well covered by law and regulation, to imply that the right would be content in the knowledge that their positions lead to death and disease. This is the type of slander that you employ
I'll have to say that I have no idea what you're speaking of. Perhaps I'm just too stupid, Marshall, so you might be better off saying, "Dan, when you say _____, it sounds like you are suggesting..." because, as noted, I have not the slightest idea how you reached slander here or that I've implied something false about you or the Right.
A little context goes a long way in making your point.
Thanks.
Marshall...
These laws came about after years of lax enforcement and easy judges absolving real drunks for a few thousand dollars in fines when the loss of the license or imprisonment was a more reasonable sentence. These drunk bastards were allowed to continue driving until they killed someone. Eventually people said, ENOUGH, and oppressive drunk driving laws were created.
So you are opposed to having drunk driving laws that are codified down to blowing a specific amount on a breathalyzer test?
How would you adjudge drunk driving, then? A police officer sees someone weave a little bit and pulls them over. The fella mentions he had a beer five hours ago, does the officer give him a ticket anyway? Does he do a field sobriety test (touch your hand to your nose, walk a line, etc)?
On what basis would we charge someone with drunk driving?
I think the breathalyzer test seems like an entirely reasonable approach and I'm fine with setting that threshold fairly low, as I want to err on the side of safety for innocent people.
Is it that you disagree with the breathalyzer test approach or just the level at which it's set? If it's just the level, then we all agree on the concept and it's just a matter of deciding a reasonable level. We've done that in most states and, in all states, that could be adjusted if the people in that state were concerned enough to make a case of it.
Where's the problem in any of that?
Similarly, yes, we DO have courts to settle matters of pollution. BUT, if there are no laws regarding pollution, then the court would have nothing to say. Polluters would go free. The court can't get involve unless someone is breaking an actual law.
Now, I'm pretty much in favor of fairly simple standards: Don't pollute. Period. No huge mass of regulations and rules that vary from place to place and instance to instance.
But, some corporations and some individuals didn't WANT a simple "Don't pollute" as the rule and so, as an accommodation to conservatives and corporations who wish to pollute SOME, we have this system of rules and regulations that sort out how much pollution is too much to dump and how much pollution is "acceptable."
But as I understand it, the jungle of rules and regulations and exceptions is out of deference to conservatives and corporations who did not want a simple, "Don't pollute" law to abide by.
If we're not going to have a simple "Don't pollute" law, how do you propose we decide what is an acceptable amount of pollutants and toxins and how much is too much?
In your ideal solution, who would decide how much is too much? Corporations?
You'll understand, I hope (you'll have to, actually) if the majority of us don't trust flawed human corporations who are trying to make things as cheaply as possible to be the final arbiters of how much toxin is too much?
So, if we don't leave it to the corporations, how do we decide how to handle this and who makes those rulings?
As it is set up now, it is agency like the EPA and state Divisions of Water (DOW) who make those calls. That seems reasonable to me.
I find nothing tyrannical about setting up a watchdog group to decide how much pollution is too much. Do you?
I said...
But, some corporations and some individuals didn't WANT a simple "Don't pollute" as the rule and so, as an accommodation to conservatives and corporations who wish to pollute SOME,
I should add, in fairness, that I'm sure that some liberals also want to pollute SOME and wanted regulations, too. I'm not sure that there are actually very many people who truly want a "Don't pollute" ruling as simple as that.
My point was that I prefer to keep it fairly simple and that it is an accommodation to corporations, mostly, that cause the huge number of regs. If I'm not mistaken.
"I think when we spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody." ~ Barack Hussein Soetero Obama
"But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf." ~ Barack Hussein Soetero Obama.
"Redistribution of wealth, political and economic justice, A charter of negative liberties, what the federal... government must do in your behalf".
In one statement, a laundry list of stated Marxist objectives utilizing the most classic Orwellian examples of doublespeak.
Since Marxism is a political ideology that shows blatant contempt for the U.S. Constitution and Obama uses Marxist buzzwords and terms, it would seem, unless he doesn't mean what he says, he has contempt for the Constitution. Of course, Obama is a liar, so I may be wrong.
Sorry. Computer lagging. I didn't think the comment posted.
But in typical lib fashion, you blow off my use of him [Levin] as a source because of his style and politics rather than respond to his charges.
1. You did not cite Levin, just said that you found something he said. I don't believe you offered a link or quote anywhere, so I have no way of knowing what his charges are.
2. I dismiss Levin because I've listened to his show and heard how he engages in less-than-reasonable demagoguery and demonization, rather than what I would consider reasonable conversation. I would say the same thing about a liberal who is just ranting about conservative "nazis" who want to "kill the poor." Such extremism in communication is not helpful beyond blowing off steam, in my opinion. I've never heard Levin say anything much that sounds like a rational adult, and I've listened to him a fairly good bit (as much as I can stand at a time, usually in short stints because he's so frothy-sounding).
One man's opinion. You're free to disagree.
We don't need massive government regulation to stop corporations (or even small mom and pop businesses) from polluting.
All it takes is a few multi-million dollar lawsuits by average people who were actually injured grievously by the negligence of said companies.
Believe me, these corporations don't want to pay out millions or billions to anyone without a significant return on their investment. A few of these lawsuits and the corporations will regulate themselves. I guarantee it.
The problem with the Government getting involved in these things, is what I call "typical government overkill".
One or two people get hurt and massive, expensive, and problematic government regulations go up to prevent the problem from happening again, when usually, it's the victims own fault that he was hurt in the first place.
We don't need government. We need common sense.
Mark Levin is my hero. That said, I wouldn't call his program. I'd be afraid he'd start in on me.:-)
Perhaps the reason Dan doesn't like Mark Levin is because he just isn't used to Conservatives who passionately express their righteous indignation with the excesses of government, and the soft tyranny of the Obama regime.
I share his passion for exposing the lunacy behind liberalism. That's why I so often call Liberals idiots. That, and because they are.
"I'm just too stupid
Dan said it, Art. I didn't.
I agree with Dan in this case, though.
I'm glad we can get some agreement, Mark.
You said...
All it takes is a few multi-million dollar lawsuits by average people who were actually injured grievously by the negligence of said companies.
Usually it's conservatives who are complaining about the number of lawsuits and a lawsuit-happy culture. So, you're suggesting that there are NO rules for polluting and, if someone gets hurt when a company dumps toxins into the water (for instance), that the survivors of the injured/killed sue the company.
But what for? If the company has broken no laws, on what basis would there be a lawsuit?
And when the company and its cast of expensive lawyers appeal and protest and drag out a lawsuit that the injured can't afford to take part in, anyway (oftentimes), then what? The company would pay damages to the survivors, if there are any left?
They do this already and it doesn't stop pollution.
No, I think behaviors that cause harm are rightly made illegal.
I think if you kill someone, it's not okay to just sue the guilty party and hope we win, we need laws saying that it's illegal to kill.
I think if you steal something, it's not enough to just sue the guilty party and hope to win, we need laws saying it's illegal to steal.
If you dump toxins into the water, it's not enough to just sue the guilty and hope we win, we need laws saying it's illegal to dump toxins.
I have no problem with outlawing dangerous behavior that will likely bring harm to innocent people.
Are you actually saying you disagree, or just disagree with where that line is? That is, do you agree that we need to criminalize SOME behaviors, but not all?
If that's the case, what dangerous behaviors do you think we ought to criminalize, which dangerous behaviors do you think we ought NOT criminalize and how would you go about proposing a logical method of deciding which ones to criminalize and which ones to NOT criminalize?
The problem with removing laws and just letting the harmed sue those who have harmed them is that it penalizes the victim twice (at least). If someone has been murdered, his family doesn't want to have to create a case and spend time and money in court trying to convince a court that harm was done. They've suffered enough.
It is the job of gov't to protect the commonwealth. As the Bible says (and many conservatives are fond of quoting)...
"For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he [the "ruler," or gov't] is God's servant to do you good.
But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he [the "ruler," or gov't] does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer."
~Romans 13
Ok..I watched a video with Mark Levin...never heard of the guy btw. It wasn't the one I originally found. I can't seem to find that one again and don't have the time to do an extensive search either. This Levin guy sounds like Rush on the right and Olberman on the left. Entertainment. Pure and simple. He really didn't give anything concrete that I could research. Just accused Obama of being a socialist.....blah...blah...blah. Just like the left accused Bush of being a Fascist...blah...blah...blah.
Bubba came the closest to giving something I could honestly research, but I didn't find anything to back up his claim really since the Constitution is silent on corporations.
I typed "Obama has contempt for Constitution" in google and I got crap written by those birthers. No thanks. I'm done with it now. It no longer interests me.
Marty,
The lines: "I'm done with it now. It no longer interests me." Bespeaks a poor attitude and one that results in people like Obama being elected to President of the United States of America, and then it's "to hell in a handbag" time as we are experiencing now in this country. Staying abreast of what our politicians are doing so that we can vote effectively and support the right kind of people, as well as the most effective policies is something that takes work and vigilance. That's just the way it is and it's what turns people off. Unfortunately those same people still vote, or at least have the right to, and when they do, they vote in idiots like Obama. I hope that your statements are just frustration over the work it takes to research important info, but that it means only that you're done for now.
Assuming you're still up for what others dig up, I present the link I failed to post originally:
I hope this link works. It should be the one I meant to post originally. This one I found along the way. If I've got them right, the first is the radio interview and the second is Levin speaking about what the Dems in Congress tried to do. It is typical of how they try to side-step the Constitution as it applies to Congressional procedures for passing laws so as to ram through what they want to see passed, but are afraid won't be via normal procedure. This shows definite contempt for the Constitution and thus is tyrannical in their abuse of power. The result is a form of fascism.
The first presents Obama's views on the Constitution, primarily as it concerns redistribution of wealth and what libs like to call "economic justice". He sees the Constitution as imperfect because it doesn't mandate what the gov't does FOR people, concentrating only on what it prevents the gov't from doing. Now, one could argue that this doesn't indicate contempt, but I would disagree. It is arrogant to be sure, as he feels he could do a better job than the authors did in crafting a better document. He also seems to forget it is the law of the land by calling it a "charter". One thing is certain, and that is for a Constitutional "professor", he hasn't a clue about what the Constitution was intended to do, which was to limit the federal gov't so as to allow the people to be as unencumbered as possible in their pursuit of happiness, and to protect the people from the very intrusions that Obama would inflict upon us. Contemptuous.
Dan,
You prove your lack of knowledge. Lawsuits do not require laws in order to proceed. There does not need to be a law preventing pollution for someone harmed by that pollution to seek and secure damages through the courts. If I hit a patch of ice on the road and slide into the car in front of me, there is no law that is broken when the guy I hit seeks compensation for whatever harm I've caused. If a product is defective and it causes a fire, there is no law broken when I seek compensation for the damage caused by the defective product.
The problem comes not in having a law simply written. It comes when butt-in-skis aren't satisfied with the reach of the existing law. If a large corporation can afford to defend themselves against charges that their actions caused harm, it is unAmerican and unChristian to suppose there is anything wrong with that. The onus is supposed to be on the accuser to prove blame is being properly placed. Increasing the number of laws will not tip the scales to hold accountable any corp that is "evil" if proof of their "evilness" cannot be found. Those laws will only unjustly burden those who are NOT evil in their business practices and those harmed by the evil guys will still suffer.
I would wager that you couldn't even find a case where a law made a difference as far as protecting people from those who would do harm. Laws never do. That's because the "evil" don't care about law and will do what they want as long as they can get away with it.
But once they have been found out, it is the courts that deal with them.
I gotta leave it here for now. It's later than I thought.
I would wager that you couldn't even find a case where a law made a difference as far as protecting people from those who would do harm. Laws never do.
I am not sure that this is true and I doubt that you are truly advocating removing our laws because they don't make a difference. Shall we strike murder from our law books because having the law does no good? Shall we strike burglary, embezzlement, arson and rape from our legal code? Just let people sue after the fact IF they can prove damage?
That isn't what you're advocating, is it?
We have laws, don't we, to delineate what is and isn't acceptable, and I'm quite confident that having them in place DOES affect behavior. People don't want to be arrested or charged with a crime, so they don't speed as much if there's a chance they'll get caught, they won't drink and drive as much, etc.
Do laws END crime? Of course not. But I'm almost confident that you agree they need to be there, nonetheless, right?
There are problems with the simply suing people after the fact for actions that aren't crimes. As noted already, that places the burden on the victim or the victim's survivors. Plus, it becomes a chore to prove damages. Plus, there's nothing preventative to it.
"Judge, I want to sue the coal company for dumping lead in our water supply!"
"Are you hurt? What are your damages?"
"Well, no, I'm not hurt right now, but lead isn't good for you..."
"Sorry, no damages, no lawsuit..."
Ten years later:
"Judge, I want to sue the coal company for dumping lead in our water!"
"Are there any damages?"
"My son is a slow learner in school..."
"Well, maybe your son is just stupid..."
As you can see, proving damages is not always easy and it's really besides the point. Some actions are just wrong. We don't have to "prove" that the rape victim has suffered damages, the rape is wrong and the perpetrator should be punished.
Blowing off a mountain top is wrong, dumping waste into streams is wrong. We don't want to wait ten, twenty, fifty years to see the, "Oh, people have cancer, people have died young, people have asthma and learning disabilities."
Laws are in place to PREVENT the wrong from happening in the first place, suing after the fact is just ineffective and penalizes the victims even further.
Surely you see the problem with that approach?
Those laws will only unjustly burden those who are NOT evil in their business practices and those harmed by the evil guys will still suffer.
The law that says "Don't dump waste" is to say what is and isn't acceptable behavior. It's not any more of a "penalty" for the "good corporations" than "don't rape" is a penalty for good men, right?
I mean, if you're ethical and honest, then having a law that says "Don't dump waste" - how's that going to harm you? Where is the penalty?
Marshall, thanks for the links. It will be most helpful. I will check them out as time permits.
I meant that I was done researching myself, because I just wasn't finding anything substantial, nor do I have that kind of time to spend on it.
I'm really not interested in the entertainment journalism of Olberman, Rush, Levin etc. And that Bauchmann woman... well, you can forget her as well. If that's the kind of crap your coming up with, then, no I'm not interested.
I'm really not interested in the entertainment journalism of Olberman, Rush, Levin etc.
Exactly. If some fella on the internet went on a rant in which he "proved" that the conservatives were acting as fascists and he offered his proof, I would not believe that "journalism" any more than I do those listed by Marty.
It has nothing to do with partisanship and everything to do with valuing truth and rationality.
Is it possible some entertainer or blogger-reporter had a Real Story? Sure. Even the National Inquirer-types of "magazines" have something approaching a real story once in a while. But they lack any credibility so we just don't spend much time paying attention to tabloids or entertainers when it comes to news.
I watch Jon Stewart when I get a chance because he's funny, not to get my news. Same for Levin. He's funny (in the "wow, what a crazy man" kind of way), but not very credible.
Ya got anything other than Levin Marshall? Or an entire interview with Obama? I"m not interested in anything that has been edited.
Jon Stewart rocks! Entertainment extraordinare!
"I am not sure that this is true and I doubt that you are truly advocating removing our laws because they don't make a difference."
No, I'm not and thanks for once again coming up with an absolutely stupid possibility. I will adjust my statement to say that laws don't matter to those intent on doing harm. It will give pause to some. They don't to me, generally speaking, because I don't have any intention to act in a manner laws are meant to punish and discourage. But they also don't to those who think they're smarter than the law keepers and more worthy of having their every desire filled than anyone else.
But that's not to say that we cannot eliminate the many redundant laws on the books, and in the realm of regulation, those that serve only to salve the overwrought concerns of environmental idiots who see the welfare of field mice as more important and beneficial to creation than mankind.
As to your courtroom scenario, more stupidiy and overly simplistic. It is reasonable and far more just to prove a danger before interfering with a legitimate business, its ability to prosper, its ability to employ and its ability to provide products or services in demand. It would not be difficult for a professional to make a case preemptively against a company dumping toxins in a waterway used by the citizenry, either directly or by virtue of its affect on the surrounding farmlands. That it, it would not be difficult if it were true that damage and harm will befall the area and people. But one cannot simply say "don't pollute" if "pollute" isn't defined in a rational manner.
The fact is that we take in pollutants of all sorts simply because we live. We absorb it through the skin and breath it into our lungs. Take away all industry and it would still be true. The point here is how much can the human body absorb and still function efficiently, being protected by our own immune systems. Just because a substance is hazardous, does not mean it's hazardous in extremely small quantities. This is the case in food manufacturing where the amount of alien matter is found to be acceptable, be it animal/insect parts or animal/insect waste. The same goes for drinking water of the bottled variety.
But if some looney-tunes enviro nazi insists on absolute purity, as some are wont to do, then the manufacturers can't do business and people suffer as a result in a variety of ways.
This is the other side of the regulatory debate and the right side of the issue understands that people are supposed to police themselves, to educate themselves and to be engaged and informed enough to take care of themselves.
The types of regs the right opposes goes way too far in protecting the innocent and seeks to protect the stupid at the expense of the rest of us so as to continue getting votes from the stupid rather than encourage them to get off their asses.
Look at lending. The notion of "predatory lenders" is lib-speak for "some people are too stupid and greedy to use their heads". What "predatory" lender put a gun to anyone's head? If they are totally misrepresenting their business, there are already laws against false advertising, but if someone is good with their money, they will not fall for "too-goo-to-be-true" lenders who say things that should be questioned and scrutinized.
Too much regulation is tyrannical in the real sense of the word. The control of business and industry resulting from too many regs is fascistic.
So we agree laws are good and necessary, yes?
We probably agree some basic environmental laws are good and necessary, too, right?
Then what shall be the criteria for enacting environmental laws? Who shall decide?
We have elected representatives who have heard that people are concerned about justice as it relates to pollution and have created the Clean Water Act, for instance.
Do you think the CWA is a bad thing?
If so, and yet if the rest of we, the people are okay with it, then I guess it is on you to convince us that the CWA is something other than just basic justice-oriented laws, no different than bans on rape or murder. They are of the same sort of legal stuff to me and to many.
It is wrong to rape. It is wrong to kill. It is wrong to dump toxins in the water. No difference.
How about for you?
"It has nothing to do with partisanship and everything to do with valuing truth and rationality."
You do NOT LISTEN to Limbaugh or Levin or you could not make such stupid statements. It has EVERYTHING to do with partisanship because any entertaining aspect of their shows is secondary to the analysis they provide of current events. Both Limbaugh and Leving are excellent sources of info, providing depth that the lefty Dem supporting mainstream media never gives. They don't just entertain, but give legitimate reasons why a given politician is full of it. THey do NOT simply object to object and they are non-partisan in their presentations. Do they have greater disdain for the lefty politicians? Of course they do. They are unapologetic conservatives. But more importantly, the left provides more stupid ideas than the right. Indeed the left cannot help but be criticized BECAUSE their ideas are so routinely anti-American and ideologically unsound.
How would either of you know of Van Jones' communist background if not for right-wing commentators? You wouldn't unless you were working for or with the dude. No one highlights that stuff and people like Jones don't walk around with a hammer and scycle emblem on their foreheads. How many would know ANYTHING about what is in the healthcare bills or the pasts of the many czars appointed by Obama if not for people like Rush, Levin, Beck (who Levin doesn't really like) and other right-wing pundits? You wouldn't and you'd happily continue supporting that which is harmful to the nation.
To put off people like Rush and Levin as pure entertainer is lazy and cowardly. It is far easier to brush them off in this manner than it is to try to disprove their points of view and their analysis of politicians' actions. It's far easier to simply swallow the sweet sounding rhetoric of a liar like Obama, as well as other lefty fantasy, than to face reality that is the sole area of concern for the Rush's and Levin's of the airwaves.
What's worse is to lump them into the same group as an Olberman, an inveterate buffoon and liar who lacks the intelligence of either Rush or Levin, or for that matter, most right-wing pundits. John Stewart has better insight than KO and is more sensible (very easy to do a still be a lefty).
But that's not to say that we cannot eliminate the many redundant laws on the books, and in the realm of regulation
For example...?
Here's a brief summary of the CWA...
The Clean Water Act is a 1977 amendment to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, which set the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants to waters of the United States.
The law gave EPA the authority to set effluent standards on an industry basis (technology-based) and continued the requirements to set water quality standards for all contaminants in surface waters. The CWA makes it unlawful for any person to discharge any pollutant from a point source into navigable waters unless a permit (NPDES) is obtained under the Act.
Reasonable or would you abolish it?
I'd say unless you want to just have one simple law (ie, DON'T POLLUTE), then we have to have some regulations and some regulatory body. Do you disagree?
How would either of you know of Van Jones' communist background if not for right-wing commentators?
Wikipedia?
Why would I be concerned that he once self-identified as a communist? I recognize that not all communists are fascists or murderers. Many folk in the US have been communists, some of our heroes. Woody Guthrie (he of, "This Land is Your Land" fame), for instance. Helen Keller, for another example.
And if, in her lifetime, Helen Keller had been nominated for an office, I would not be troubled by her socialist background unless it interfered somehow with her job.
Many reasonable folk have toyed with various angles of communism/socialism in their past or even currently. And that's okay. At least with me, because, as noted, I recognize that communism does not equal fascism or murderer or boogeyman.
There are more stripes of patriotic, Christian, Country-loving Americans than just Conservative Republicans, you know.
Marty,
What is the concern with Bachman? Are you referring to Michelle Bachman? The woman's one of the best minds in Congress. I'd pit her against anyone from the other side of the aisle any day of the week. What has she ever said or done that would make anyone put her down so much? I know. She's a conservative woman who acts more like a woman should and does so without apology.
I would also ask what is wrong with the exerpts presented in the Levin links? Do you really think they'd sound more sensible if you heard it within the whole interview? Nice wish, but it wouldn't come true.
And that's another thing you get with the better conservative pundits: they aren't afraid to present the words of politician in complete context. They don't have to be. The words to which they object are easily proven to be stupid or anti-American and they're all too happy to expose them. I don't see that on the left. At least not without an analysis that distorts the meaning. Rush Limbaugh, for instance, plays huge clips and his analysis is spot on as the consequences of which he warns come to fruition with alarming regularity if no intervention takes place. He's almost clairvoyant. He's just really good at knowing the lib mind so well as to easily predict the real outcome of their proposals despite how they advertise them.
I'm not surprised that Dan would blow them off since his powers of comprehension are so poor. His inability to separate the schtick from the meat is likely very confusing to him. I know that there are some on the right who would rather there be no schtick on such shows, but then they'd be kinda boring. I see no issue with someone who likes to have fun even while working or trying to discuss a serious point. But doing so does not diminish the truth of what they say (unless one is capable of disproving it---don't see much of that), nor the importance of hearing it.
Oh, and speaking of tyranny, fascism and contempt for the Constitution, I would point to Obama's appointment for FCC "Diversity Czar", Mark Lloyd. He would determine to whom one can listen. He is but one example of the fascistic and tyrannical bent of our president and his administration, and by virtue of its at least tacit approval, the entire Dem party.
"How would either of you know of Van Jones' communist background if not for right-wing commentators?
Wikipedia?"
That's funny. You didn't even research Obama before you voted for him and you're going to research any of his appointments? You simply assume the guy is appointing good people. Who you BS'ing?
And no, I don't think having once been a commie is an automatic disqualifier. David Horowitz was a commie at one time. Michael Medved was lib and worked for lib politicians. But aside from the fact that, like Helen Keller, they haven't run for political office, they've changed their political stripes. Jones never repented of his commie leanings and communism is incompatible with American character. I would indeed question anyone with a commie background, particularly one who has not shown that he has rejected that background.
" I recognize that communism does not equal fascism or murderer or boogeyman."
You're not capable of recognizing your own liberal nature and heretical beliefs, so your statement isn't reassuring. What's more, communism has indeed equalled fascism and murder everywhere it has become the system of a country. It is only in those areas where it was prevented from taking root has it not been.
"But doing so does not diminish the truth of what they say (unless one is capable of disproving it---don't see much of that) NOR THE IMPORTANCE OF HEARING IT." (empahsis mine)
So here we are Marshall. I'm not willing to waste my time with another....one of which I already watched...fearmongering Levin edited YouTube video and you don't see any importance of hearing anything to disprove your notions. So my interest in discussing it further is non-existant unless you give me something more than fearmongering propaganda.
Marty is right, Marshall. If you merely want to rant and complain, then citing a ranter and a complainer will suffice for you.
IF, on the other hand, you want to try to make a reasonable case, all you have to do is cite a reasonable source. We don't buy Levin as reasonable.
Are there no other reasonable media sources? FoxNews, while flawed, is at least a relatively credible news source. Levin is not.
Cite a news source or some unedited first hand source if you want to make your case to those who don't agree with you.
Or rant, if that's what you want to do, and cite ranters. But you won't come across as credible if that's your goal.
You didn't even research Obama before you voted for him and you're going to research any of his appointments?
Sorry to disappoint you, but I did research Obama, along with all the other candidates. I don't know what in the world would make you think that.
Coming back to an earlier comment you made...
I'm not and thanks for once again coming up with an absolutely stupid possibility.
Sorry...
Coming back to an earlier comment you made...
I'm not and thanks for once again coming up with an absolutely stupid possibility.
Perhaps I should apologize for not being more obvious with what I'm doing. I ask questions about extreme circumstances in order to clarify and find common ground. You said that laws "never do" prevent people from doing harm. I asked questions to clarify that you don't actually mean we ought have no laws.
Finding common ground - where we agree - is the starting point in order to find where we start disagreeing. Once we've done that, we can talk about our actual disagreement, rather than spend time debating points we don't disagree upon.
So, I ask, in order to clarify,
1. Don't you think we ought to have laws outlawing rape and murder?
You apparently do.
I then clarify further:
2. Okay, we agree that it is good and right to have laws criminalizing SOME behaviors.
I then ask,
3. Why criminalize some behaviors and not others? Is it because they cause harm? Because they're just "wrong" and, if so, what makes them wrong?
4. It is my contention that they are criminally wrong because they violate a basic human right - the right to life, for instance, the right not to be physically or wrongly financially harmed, for instance. Those are the basis of much of our laws, I'd suggest.
Do we agree upon that much?
5. If so, I then further ask: Well, then why would we not ALSO criminalize dumping toxic waste into streams? If dumping this waste causes physical harm (and it does - or at least can), how is that any different than criminalizing rape and murder?
Do you get my point? I ask extreme questions as a starting point to find common ground on which we can build hopefully better communication. I hope that seems reasonable, it does to me.
What's more, communism has indeed equalled fascism and murder everywhere it has become the system of a country.
Communism (or more rightly, socialism) DOES have a bad track record at the national level. It's one reason why I'm not a socialist and why I think it's obvious that Obama isn't a socialist. However, not every nation that has been socialist has had problems to the degree that Lenin's USSR did, for instance.
Nicaragua is an instance where the capitalists behaved as bad or even worse than the socialists, for instance. France and Sweden are at least partially socialist in nature and yet they don't have a horrible human rights track record.
Socialism is problematic and perhaps it tends to not be a good economic system for democracies, but it in itself is not fascist or tyrannical. It's just an economic model. A flawed one, like capitalism.
I tend to come down on the side that capitalism is the better choice at national levels, but I can see that good people of good faith with intentions of liberty and freedom can side on the side of more or less socialism and I don't think that leaning that way in any way makes one a "bad American."
Rather, I'd prefer to judge a person by their own actions and own words, not by what OTHER people say their economic and political stances mean.
Dan, in order to find common ground Marshall and his buds would have to be willing to find common ground. So far, I've not seen any evidence that they are. We are considered their "opponents". That in itself is very telling.
He drew a circle that shut me out,
Heretic, rebel, a thing to flout. But Love and I had the wit to win, We drew a circle that took him in.
~Edward Markham
We've already discovered common ground: We agree (apparently) that laws are good and that we ought to have some laws.
We believe that it is right and good to have laws that criminalize causing harm and death.
I believe we even agree that some laws against pollution are right and good.
So it appears that we don't really disagree on the notion of whether or not there should be environmental laws criminalizing actions that might cause harm and death.
So, it appears (he'll clarify hopefully if I'm mistaken) that we agree upon the whole idea in theory, it just comes down to where we draw the line on how much pollution or toxins is acceptable and not. And who knows? We may even find some agreement on that!
I'd find it hard to believe that Marshall or any of the others here actually believe it should not be criminalize to dump toxic, dangerous amounts of poison into a river or stream near people (ie, everywhere), but perhaps we can find out where they draw the lines.
In general, I expect that we tend to agree more than we disagree, even if some find that hard to believe or accept.
"Rather, I'd prefer to judge a person by their own actions and own words, not by what OTHER people say their economic and political stances mean."
And therein lies another problem with your comprehension. You first of all, ignore the implications of the actions and words of those you support. You've done this on your way to electing Obama, first, because there is nothing in his track record to justify a vote to begin with, and secondly, you refuse to acknowledge the validity of the arguments against such people by those like Levin. Levin is far more intelligent and definitely more knowledgeable about the Constitution and American history, than is Obama. The links I've posted bear this out on the subject herein being discussed, but you, and Marty, pretend there is nothing of substance in his comments. This is either an abject lie, or a serious mental shortcoming on your parts to insist it is so.
Levin isn't fear mongering, he's explaining the implications of Obama's position. If you don't like it, say why. To simply insist it's fear mongering is intellectually lazy. Listen again, and this time, actually listen. Get beyond Levin's style to hear what he's saying about Obama's words and try to pretend you really care. This crap about his interview being edited doesn't wash. The sentiment in question is clearly and completely expressed in the snippets and aren't chopped up for propaganda-like effect. Then Levin analyses and comments.
You don't buy Levin? Because he rants? What BS! What cowardice on your part! He rants because he's in full understanding of what's going on in Washington. We should ALL be ranting! But along with his rants are the reasons why Obama is bad for the nation. Along with Limbaugh's schtick are the reasons why Obama is bad for the nation. Along with Beck's clowing are the reasons why Obama is bad for the nation. NOBODY on the left seems to want to address those reasons. They take the easy way out and attack the pundit for his style of delivery. Levin's pissed and pissed with good reason. Get his books from the library and read them.
Newt Gingrich doesn't rant. He says the same types of things the above people do. The argument is virtually identical. Is there a problem with HIS credibility. I know Geoffrey doesn't like him, thinks poorly of him, but never speaks to his points. You're both doing the same with Levin. That's S.O.P. for the left.
France and Sweden are in the process of dumping their socialist ways. To what extent remains to be seen, but they're doing it. Even China is trending toward a level of capitalism that wouldn't have seemed possible 50 years ago. You're arguing degrees. That France and Sweden haven't started killing people does not mean that they wouldn't be faced with the decision to do so if they insist on maintaining their socialist ways that they are now finding to be harmful to their nations economies. (And yet when I argue degrees, it's not socialism, communism or fascism. Funny how that always works that way.)
But, you are by being a liberal, and you ARE a liberal by the current use of the word, ARE socialist in your own prference for graduated taxation alone. If there was nothing else, that alone would qualify you for having a socialist bent, because it's a step in that direction and opposed to the spirit of the founders and their idea of what this nation was supposed to be about.
more coming---
Dan, you have certainly found common ground and have drawn the circle big enough to include everyone, but I'm not sure Marshall agrees that you have found commong ground. I hope he speaks to this and corrects me if I'm wrong.
I keep trying to walk away and get some work done, but then I see whilst typing away, more goofy comments are made. I'll address one and then take off for a while.
"Dan, in order to find common ground Marshall and his buds would have to be willing to find common ground. So far, I've not seen any evidence that they are. We are considered their "opponents". That in itself is very telling."
I don't know what common ground Dan seeks. If it's areas of agreement, he's fishing for something with which to knock us. Do I believe some regs and laws are necessary in a civil society? What a stupid question as I've never hinted that the opposite is true or desired. But that the discussion has gotten to such is my fault and it is a manifestation of one of my own shortcomings. I allow Dan to move the discussion to his terms and his preferred topic. That's over now. No more talk of laws against rape or laws against dumping toxins into rivers. It hasn't been about NO regulations, but limiting federal government activity to it's Constitutionally mandated duties. It's been about OVER regulation and whether or not problems in this country are a result of deregulation or lack of regulation. It's been about how the current admin and the left in general use regulation to control and tyranize the populace in the name of promoting the general welfare.
And Marty, we are opponents because we are in opposition. What would you prefer, "playmates"? Dan insists on definitional specificity, don't you know. As lefties, you want things done one way and I oppose them. As righteous right-wingers we want things another way and lefties oppose it. That makes us opponents, even though we are all "in this together" as you would like to say. Don't get all "Dan" on me and muddy the discussion with such nonsense. The next thing you know you'll be saying I lack grace.
"Sorry to disappoint you, but I did research Obama, along with all the other candidates. I don't know what in the world would make you think that."
Previous discussions on the subject. You didn't do crap in the way of dilligent research to find out about a guy with no track record to speak of. You couldn't have researched his time as IL Senator and still found him qualified or desirable over even John McCain. He did NOTHING as a US Senator except campaign from about the 140 day mark of his term and during that 140 day mark supported all the financial mistakes that he nows says he inherited from Bush. So, if you insist you checked him out, you add more evidence to what is so clear now, that your powers of comprehension and reason are horribly suspect.
"And Marty, we are opponents because we are in opposition. What would you prefer, "playmates"?"
That's cute Marshall.
"It is far easier to brush them off in this manner than it is to try to disprove their points of view and their analysis of politicians' actions."
Ok..Instead of taking the "easy" way out...I offer this.
Continuing with my effort at not being "lazy" I also offer this one.
"You couldn't have researched his time as IL Senator and still found him qualified or desirable over even John McCain."
I'd like to put my 2 cents in here even thought that wasn't directed at me. I have always liked John McCain and actually voted for him in the primary when he ran against GW. Had he been the nominee back then I would have voted for him. But in this last election he was quite different and not at all the McCain I was drawn to, and then when he picked Palin for his running mate, a heartbeat away from the Presidency....NO THANKS!
Marshall...
No more talk of laws against rape or laws against dumping toxins into rivers. It hasn't been about NO regulations, but limiting federal government activity to it's Constitutionally mandated duties. It's been about OVER regulation and whether or not problems in this country are a result of deregulation or lack of regulation.
So, then, which rules would you eliminate IF you could convince the People to go along with you? Would you get rid of the CWA?
Do you think we need to have EPA type agencies? If not, then how will polluters be monitored and by whom in order to insure they're not causing harm?
Here's your chance to make your case, when you get a chance, Marshall.
The People rightly believe that we have a right to outlaw or regulate that which can and does cause harm. I think you agree with the concept (although you have not really answered many of my direct questions directly - which is fine, I understand you're busy, it's just that answering questions DOES help folk understand one another better), so how do we implement environmental protection? What safeguards would you recommend? Which laws/rules are "too much?"
No hurries.
Still not able to spend the time to properly peruse your links, Marty, but your last comment demanded attention. This part of it, anyway:
"... and then when he picked Palin for his running mate, a heartbeat away from the Presidency....NO THANKS!"
But you felt good abut Joe Biden. Interesting. An unqualified idiot running for president chooses a greater idiot for Vice-P and you get scared off by Palin. Incredible. She's more qualified and without a doubt naturally smarter than either Barry or Joe. The problem with the other ticket is the order. Palin has a better grasp of what really ails the nation, what is the better course for it to follow that she should have been in the #1 slot. And I say this wondering myself if she was truly ready for the White House. Yet at this point, I am convinced beyond any shadow of a doubt that this country would be in better shape if she WAS the president. She DOES understand and respect the Constitution. Can't say that about Barry.
She's more qualified and without a doubt naturally smarter than either Barry or Joe.
Are you just basing that on the fact that you like her politics better or her schooling has somehow impressed you or what? She seems like an entirely nice lady, but I see no great evidence to suggest she's "naturally smarter" than our president, or even Biden.
I think sometimes it's easy to assume that those people we like are smarter, prettier, faster and better cooks than those we don't like, is that what this is about?
Still under time constraints at present ( I get little gaps where I can check in before moving on to another task. ) One thing I want to say is that I'm not interested in spending the time it would take to review thousands of laws and regulations in order to debate the merits, or lack thereof here. Nor do I believe it's necessary to support the position that regs are often knee-jerk in nature and crippling to individual rights in many cases. I would point to the Deep Water Horizon disaster and the call for more regs to prevent another before the actual cause is even discovered. I haven't heard anyone mention that this very oil rig was given a major award/recognition for safety last year and was due to receive another. Accidents happen and it's possible that we're looking at just that. Regulations cannot remove the unexpected from happening, nor can they lessen their occurrance. They wouldn't be accidents then. But that doesn't matter to some who will demand "something be done" to make sure another doesn't occur and THAT'S when prices are driven higher, jobs are lost and productivity that drives the economy is reduced. The result is tyrannical and fascistic in its consequence.
AS to Dan's last, we know two things: Obama's actions have done nothing to improve life in this country and in fact have done the opposite. The other thing we know is that Palin would not likely have done any of them as a Reagan-type conservative. That alone makes her smarter than idiot-boy and his "let's-pretend-we-run-the-country" administration. Conservative philosophy IS superior to liberal philosophy. It is proven every time it is put into practice.
You continue to make the mistake that who we like comes first and then our opinion of their intellect or beauty or anything else. This is idiocy. Palin's hot looking first. If that's all I knew about her, I'd then HOPE that she was smart enough to be a conservative. Fortunately, it turns out she is. I support people BECAUSE they're conservative because I support conservative ideals, and I do THAT because that IS the smarter way to go. So, they're conservative first, and that's why I like them. I don't like them first, and then pretend that conservativism is better. It IS better so I like those who are conservative.
On the other hand, Obama has yet to prove odes to his brilliance weren't just fantasy. He's done nothing to prove anything remotely indicating brilliance. Try naming something. OH, and doing things like keeping Petraeus running the war isn't brilliant, it's obvious. Hey, you can even try to name something he's done that's merely smart. You don't have to prove brilliance. As I said, just being a conservative makes Palin smarter, and her successful experience in executive positions made her more qualified.
"Yet at this point, I am convinced beyond any shadow of a doubt that this country would be in better shape if she WAS the president."
Well, Marshall, you may get the chance to find out whether you are right or wrong.
"OH, and doing things like keeping Petraeus running the war isn't brilliant, it's obvious."
LOL
My Dad, a WWII hero and Bronze Star recipient said of Petraeus:
"He's nothing but a yes man". My Dad couldn't stand him.
Let me say something about what I call, "typical government overkill."
Several years ago, one gay man was murdered. The Liberal media began insisting this was a hate crime. Shortly thereafter, legislation was introduced in Congress, and eventually passed, creating a law based on special circumstances, ie, hate crime legislation.
Now, Matthew Shepard was murdered. No argument there. But, would he be any less dead if laws against hate crimes were already in place at the time of his murder? If it wasn't a hate crime, and tried as just an ordinary murder, would his murderers have been set free instead of convicted?
What was the point in adding a special category to murder? Murder is still just as much against the law as it ever was. Does calling it a hate crime stop people from murdering other people? Isn't about 98% of murders motivated at least in part by hate? Can Dan show that hate crime legislation even slowed down the rate of murders in the U.S, let alone prevented any?
Any murder is tragic. No argument there, either. But seriously was it necessary to create a whole new category of murder because of one otherwise unremarkable life?
This is government overkill. Wasting tax payers money to criminalize a crime that was already a crime. All because lawmakers on both sides of the aisle decided that with all the outrageous indignation being sent up from the left over this one murder, it would be politically expedient to outlaw behavior that was already outlawed in the first place.
Here's something else that's more recent:
I saw it on the news just the other day. A child swallowed a small disc battery from a broken toy. It was only stuck in his throat for about three hours, and didn't kill him. It did, however burn a hole in the inside of his throat. Now he faces some corrective surgery and there is speculation that he may never be the same again. This truly is a tragic event. Again, I won't argue that it isn't. I feel sorry for the child and his family.
But, in reporting this event, the news station created an entire special report, editorializing that something drastic must be done immediately to prevent this sort of accident happening again.
And, I have no doubt that legislation is probably already being drawn up, and will subsequently be passed as a bonafide law to prevent this tragedy from happening to any other children. More government overkill. You watch and see if I didn't nail this one.
Now. How often does this sort of thing happen? With 300 million citizens in the U.S., what are the odds of more than two or three children swallowing a small disc battery and ending up with a hole in their throats in the course of a year?
And, what about the parents? Do they bear some responsibility for not watching their child closer? Could they have been negligent in caring for their child?
What if this was only a freak accident? What if no one except the child is at fault.
How will this pending legislation be sold? How will it be worded? Who will have to accept the blame and eventual prosecution for this?
And, the most important question is:
Is passing a law regarding this unusual accident really worth the time, tax money, and effort?
I'm sure Dan will say "Yes, it is always worth it if it saves one childs life"
Which will prove Dan is every bit the fascist I say he is.
Marty,
Let's see...Petraeus is not yet 58 years old. Born in '52, he obviously couldn't have served in either WWII or Korea.
If one was 19 when WWII ended in '45, he'd be 84 now. But the average age of WWII soldiers was 26, which of course would make a guy 96 years old. Your father, God bless him, is somewhere between 84-96 years old. When did they serve together that he would know Petraeus as "nothing but a yes-man" and well enough to not be able to stand him? I ask because the age disparity is great. Aren't all soldiers yes-men to some extent? That is, isn't it their job to act as ordered? With all due respect to your father, his opinion demands clarification of his association with Petraeus. If his opinion is just that of a retired soldier watching the news, his own distinguished service is irrelevant in terms of suggesting it means his opinion has more value than anyone else's.
Okay, so Marshall, you don't have even one environmental regulation that you can point to and say "This one is asking too much and is, therefore, fascism."
You and I agree that it is okay to have environmental laws. We agree that it is okay to have environmental regulations. I think we agree that EPA type agencies are necessary and that NONE of this is fascism.
But, I think you're saying, at SOME point, some of these rules are too much, and that is what is making it fascism.
Is that a fair summary?
How about this, then, let me give an example of an actual regulation/law that we can all understand and see if it crosses that unknown boundary?
States around here (and probably most states, although I don't know that) have started regulating and trying to legislate out of existence "straight-pipes." Straight-pipes are septic systems that dump waste from households straight into streams. You flush, the toilet's contents go down the pipe and out into the stream out back.
Doing this, of course, dumps e coli and all manner of nastiness directly into our waterways. This, of course, causes harm, real and potential health threats.
Legislators have, in the last years, begun the process of "criminalizing" straight pipes. They have done so by working with state Divisions of Water and other agencies to help folk move away from this approach to more rational/less dangerous septic systems.
I guess they've been a bit "soft on crime" in that they're not seeking to criminalize the home owners, putting them in jail over this, they're just working with them to eliminate it, by force of law.
This would be an easily understood example that affects us all.
Fascism or reasonable legislation?
Or how about the CWA - is that responsible legislation or overstep and fascism?
Wiki's summary, as a reminder:
The Clean Water Act is the primary federal law in the United States governing water pollution. ...The act established the goals of
1. eliminating releases to water of high amounts of toxic substances,
2. eliminating additional water pollution by 1985, and
3. ensuring that surface waters would meet standards necessary for human sports and recreation by 1983.
This legislation was passed by Nixon, along with the Clean Air Act and the Environmental Policy Act. Was Nixon a fascist for signing into law this legislation?
And to be clear, I'm just asking these questions to clarify, so that we can see what you mean by fascism and who fits that category.
So far, I can't see where we disagree on anything, just that there is some undefined point where reasonable legislation becomes over-regulation, at which point, I think you're saying we've reached some level of fascism.
But I don't know that I support this sort of "soft fascism" or not, or if you do, since it remains undefined. Right?
Perhaps it would be helpful to give the criteria you would use for crafting laws. If Congress asked you, you would tell them...
"You can pass legislation criminalizing behavior that harms or potentially harms people but you have to draw the line at..."
...at what? Can you define this for us?
How about flipping it the other way - is conservative legislation criminalizing gay marriage over-regulation and thus, fascism, by your definition?
How about the massive drug war that has criminalized the individual smoking marijuana and engaging in other legislation along those lines, placing millions of otherwise law-abiding citizens in the court and penal system at a cost of, I'm sure, billions of dollars... fascism?
"With all due respect to your father, his opinion demands clarification of his association with Petraeus."
Sorry can't help you with the clarification. Can't ask him. My Dad passed away at the age of 93 last year. His "opinion" was based on interviews he saw with Petraeus during the Bush Administration. It's really neither here nor there.
I just thought your comment regarding Petraeus: "OH, and doing things like keeping Petraeus running the war isn't brilliant, it's obvious" - was quite funny in light of what I heard my Dad say.
And so now I ask you the question, with all due respect Marshall, what is your association with Petraeus that you would know whether putting him in charge wasn't brilliant?
I don't need to have a personal relationship. My comment is based on conventional wisdom that refers to Petraeus as extremely capable. He is so lauded by most from both sides of the aisle. With this in mind, his selection to replace McChrystal cannot be used to indicate any brilliance on the part of Barry O. This was my point. Doing the obvious is not brilliant. If he had chosen some unknown (to the general public) that then did amazing things, such a selection could be described as brilliant. But to select someone with a well established track record (something Barry himself never had before less than brilliant people starting referring to him as brilliant) is more a matter of "well, of course".
Dan,
You continue to attempt to turn this debate in a direction that suits you. Too bad. Ain't gonna happen. As I said, I'm not about to peruse thousands of regulations, study the circumstances that provoked it, and then argue over each as to their necessity or benefit. It's unnecessary in this discussion, which is about (wait...I've forgotten...let me look) maintaining our national character and returning to the principles that made us great. To the extent that regulations can hurt or harm, the issue is too much regulation as a form of control never intended by our founders for the federal gov't to possess. Over-regulation is tyrannical in its impact on individual freedom and the pursuit of happiness.
If you wish to persist, then I offer the following links for you to study to better understand my meaning. Some are mere arguments against over-regulation, but most, if not all contain examples:
This and this refer to FDA regulations. This and this deal with the financial crisis. This involves nursing homes, and this deals with more health care related over regulation. Note that it speaks of more lives lost due to over regulation in health care than those allegedly lost due to lack of insurance. You'll need to peruse the attendant link for details of that.
Next is a case study that shows the effect on small business.
Finally, this, this and this are more general looks at the costs of over regulation, with further examples. (There MIGHT be a reprint in there, but I'm not sure. You'll find out.)
The bottom line is that you now have plenty of examples of what I'm talking about regarding over regulation and how the effects are tyrannical. One or two of the above talks about bad science being used to create regulations. We know of the detrimental effect of the banning of certain pesticides because of faulty or possibly willful disregard for the facts. It has lead to many, many unnecessry deaths.
So too, have laws such as gun bans that prevent law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves, their loved ones and property.
So have at it.
You continue to attempt to turn this debate in a direction that suits you. Too bad. Ain't gonna happen.
I thought it was you and your pals that were trying to make the case that liberalism = fascism (or "soft fascism," whatever that is) and so I was trying to discern what exactly you were trying to suggest.
At first, it seemed you were anti-laws in general and that those who support laws are fascists. As it turns out, this is not what you were advocating (which I didn't think was the case but wanted to verify so as not to speak for you).
Then it seemed you were suggesting that those who support environmental laws - criminalizing behaviors that cause harm - but it seems (although I am not sure that I have a straight answer from you) that you even agree that environmental laws are reasonable.
So, now it SEEMS like you're saying it's not that environmental laws themselves (ie, criminalizing causing harm in/through the environment) are problematic, but that SOME regulations or SOME NUMBER of regulations that are the problem.
On this, we MAY have agreement. It's entirely possible (I'd go so far as to say that it's likely) that some environmental regulations are poorly thought out and implemented. Just because this is a flawed system like any other human enterprise. So, we probably agree that SOME regulations would be better done away with or changed.
Neither of us appear to KNOW of any such regulations specifically, but I concede the possibility that they exist and you seem confident of it.
So, again, it seems we agree on every point. The only place of disagreement is in some un-named and vague "SOME regulations" out there. But I hope you can see that reasonable people won't condemn all regulations and laws because "Some" regulations might be bad.
We can't agree OR disagree on unidentified problems, so as far as I can tell, we're in complete agreement on this point.
1. Criminalizing harmful behavior is legitimate and NOT fascism.
2. Criminalizing harmful environmental behavior is legitimate and NOT fascism.
3. "Some" regulations may be bad ones, but neither of us can identify even one.
So, your example that liberals support fascism because they support environmental laws falls apart since you agree with environmental laws, too.
Case closed until such time as someone can find an actual "bad" or "fascist" regulation. Lacking any whatsoever, I'll continue gladly supporting criminalizing harmful behavior, right alongside my blogfriend, Marshall.
Marty,
I now would like to get to your first link in an earlier comment, that pertained to Obama's socialist bent. My first question is, did you post it because you agree with me, or disagree? Hard to tell because the lefty author makes my case so easily. Jensen writes this:
"As with any complex political idea, socialism means different things to different people. But there are core concepts in socialist politics that are easy to identify, including (1) worker control over the nature and conditions of their work; (2) collective ownership of the major capital assets of the society, the means of production; and (3) an egalitarian distribution of the wealth of a society."
Regarding point 1: Barry O is a huge supporter of unions, particularly SEIU, and has granted unions dispensation from some of the oppressive aspects of the crammed-down-our-throats health care bill.
2: He has moved in this direction (and so obviously) by Obamacare alone, as it can only lead to nationalization of the health care industry, and also by the takeover of GM. Isn't Jensen even watching the news?
3: Meet "Joe the plumber". And if you really listened to the Levin piece, Barry talks specifically about redistribution of wealth.
Accoring to Jensen's own words, Barry is a socialist. He's not quite Stalin, but he's a socialist nonetheless. He states in the very next paragraph that Barry never argues for these things, yet it isn't his arguments (which can't be trusted) but his actions, and frankly, he's argued for redistribution enough that it's a lie to say otherwise. But then Jensen says this:
" This is hardly surprising, given the degree to which our society is dominated by corporations, the primary institution through which capitalism operates."
This guy's an idiot. Capitalism doesn't "operate through" corporations, corporations operate and succeed because of capitalism. They don't succeed in a socialist system and moves to socialize our society will further cripple our economy because they suck out the spirit that drives progress. He goes on to say:
"While Obama's stimulus plan was Keynesian in nature, there is nothing in administration policy to suggest he is planning to move to the left in any significant way."
Like Dan, this buffoon must insist on recorded words of Obama to the tune of, "I'm going to move to the left in a significant way!" This, however, is likely understandable from someone as leftist as this author. But everything in Obama's past, that all who voted for him obviously know and support since they all vetted him so scrupulously, and most of his appointments demonstrate exactly that---he is looking to move the country hard to the left. Indeed, his moves thus far, mentioned above, are proof enough. The next sentence:
"The crisis in the financial system provided such an opportunity, but Obama didn't take it and instead continued the transfer of wealth to banks and other financial institutions begun by Bush."
The transfer of wealth in any direction by the government is totally socialist as it isn't in the Constitutionally approved job description of president to do so. At least with Bush, most of his transfers involved returning money to the taxpayers in the form of rebates and such, though his bailouts of banks were not.
More lunacy ahead:
"Obama and some Democrats have argued for a slight expansion of the social safety net, which is generally a good thing in a society with such dramatic wealth inequality and such a depraved disregard for vulnerable people. But that's not socialism. It's not even socialism lite. It's capitalism -- heavy, full throttle, and heading for the cliff."
This article must be a parody. Expansion of the social safety net is a good thing? To what limit exactly? For the left, there is no limit, and the fact that this author considers this "heavy, full throttle, and heading for the cliff" capitalism is laughable. I wonder why he used phrases like "depraved disregard for vulnerable people" without an example of what that means. And who holds this disregard? Not conservative capitalists. We know that such people are very generous. He must mean the system. But the system isn't meant to GIVE anyone anything, but rather to allow everyone the same chance to succeed based on THEIR abilities, skills and desire. "Wealth inequality" is a product of individual actions and inaction, not a by-product of capitalism. But lefties like Jensen and Obama and many in his admin push that kind of claptrap to foist their crippling proposals on a gullible public. Fortunately, the percentage of truly gullible seems to be on the decline these days.
It just goes on:
"In reaction to the issues of the day, a socialist would fight to nationalize the banks, create a national health system, and end imperialist occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan."
Anyone who believes we are not heading in this direction is dishonest or stupid. There is no other possibility. One caveat would be toward the situation in Iraq and Afhanistan. The charge of imperialism on the part of our country is an incredible lie and never borne out by the facts. What have we taken over? Who is now under our control? From anything I've ever read about these two wars, the idea is to give power to the people to become prosperous and free. There has never been a push to control. To influence? Yes, and with good reason. In every instance where we've influenced policy in other countries it's because it has been better than the previous situation, for both the country in question AND the region or world, as THUS for us. Lefties never get that. And then to say it is an occupation, that too is a lie as we are not controlling anything, but assisting where help is needed. But does Barry look at it that way? Doubtful.
"With this in mind, his selection to replace McChrystal cannot be used to indicate any brilliance on the part of Barry O. This was my point."
I misunderstood. You seemed to implying that selecting Petraeus was a stupid move, therefore agreeing with my Dad. My bad.
I'm going to let it go at that. There is so much more I could show as being foolish and lacking in any real sense of understanding on the part of Jensen. He makes a comment about us not knowing our history. He's an idiot and is guilty of his own accusation.
For example, he says that,
"But capitalism is not only inhuman and anti-democratic; it's also unsustainable, and if we don't come to terms with that one, not much else matters. Capitalism is an economic system based on the concept of unlimited growth, yet we live on a finite planet. Capitalism is, quite literally, crazy."
No, HE'S crazy and quite stupid. Capitalism is based on private ownership of both property and the means by which it is had. It is free enterprise and the system that best provides for the success of anyone with a good plan and the desire to see it though. It is a system that aligns perfectly with the concept of individual rights, something with which the founders were quite concerned. Idiots on the left look to those who do not avail themselves of the system, or are products of an upbringing that fails to instruct them on personal responsibility and sees such as victims of the system they ignore. He also shows stupidity by ignoring the supply and demand dynamic that a capitalist exploits for success. There is always a demand for something. A capitalist sees this and acts accordingly thereby satisfying the demand by providing the supply. This is hardly finite and certainly not to the extent that the next several dozen generations will ever have to worry.
All in all, the main problem with your offering here, Marty, is the fact that the source is an incredible socialist himself and can't see reality as a result. He's one who finds Obama a failure for NOT being socialist enough to suit him. But his arguments do nothing to dispel the fact that Obama is indeed socialist in nature. There is just too much evidence to pretend otherwise.
Dan,
I just provided examples. Go read them. And BTW, when you go to extremes, such as the possibility that we oppose all laws and regulations, I don't believe you are trying to merely clarify anything. Such a suggestion is just too stupid to be considered honest and thoughtful conversation.
"So, your example that liberals support fascism because they support environmental laws falls apart since you agree with environmental laws, too."
Never suggested this. My whole position revolved around OVER-regulation, not merely regulation. That you would try to even hint at it is the type of slanderous behavior about which you constantly whine when far more reasonable conclusions about your position are stated. There's no way anyone with even only grade school powers of comprehension would suggest that anything we've said can be interpreted as "anti-laws" as opposed to too many unnecessary laws and regulations.
Now go read all my links as punishment for your persistent nonsense. You deserve it for such stupid assumptions.
Marshall, way back at 1:55 on July 12, Mark said...
All it takes is a few multi-million dollar lawsuits by average people who were actually injured grievously by the negligence of said companies.
And concluded by saying...
We don't need government. We need common sense.
You followed up by saying...
The onus is supposed to be on the accuser to prove blame is being properly placed. Increasing the number of laws will not tip the scales to hold accountable any corp that is "evil" if proof of their "evilness" cannot be found. Those laws will only unjustly burden those who are NOT evil in their business practices and those harmed by the evil guys will still suffer.
This sounds like you both were saying that laws aren't needed and I thought you were implying that those who DO think laws are needed are, therefore, fascists.
And so I asked questions to gain some clarification. I am not at all sure what your problem is with me clarifying what your position is exactly. I did not figure that you were opposed to all laws, but I wanted to verify. It DID sound like you were opposed to all environmental laws, and so I wanted to clarify.
As it stands, we ALL agree (well, maybe not Mark) that SOME laws - against rape, against murder, against dumping toxins - are legitimate and that supporting such laws does not make one a fascist.
This seems important to me for clarification purposes.
Where we stand now is that you STILL seem to think that some regulations are "too much" and that in the "too much" is where we get fascism. However, you can't point to any specific regulations.
cont'd...
You did point to some sources that complain about regulations. I read through a few of them but didn't really find anything about specific regulations that they are saying are problematic.
So, I am still at the point where I think we agree:
1. Laws are good.
2. Environmental laws are good.
3. Having too many laws and regulations COULD be bad, but no one has pointed out any specific rules that are bad.
IF we agree (and I think we do) that regulations are needed, that groups like the EPA need to exist in order to stop harmful, polluting practices that are criminal in nature, AND YET you are concerned that there are too many regulations in at least SOME areas of gov't, then it would behoove you to be able to speak to which regulations you'd like to get rid of.
Additionally, IF we agree that regulations are good and necessary, then if you could produce a criteria for how to implement helpful regulations without overdoing it, that would help your case.
As it stands now, we agree that generally, over-regulation COULD be a bad thing but NO ONE here has produced the first "bad regulation" that we ought to remove.
As to one of your sources, it seemed to be arguing the problem from a morally backwards position: It was suggesting that over-regulation was bad and that the proof of that was how expensive it is to our economy.
Do we count the costs like that for rape? For murder? Do we say, "IF we regulate WHO can take (or "steal," if you prefer) WHAT, then that will put a real dent in our economy. If we start imprisoning those who steal and embezzle, THAT would be an incentive for companies not to operate out of America..."
It's looking at the financial "costs" of criminalizing harmful behavior first, over and above the financial and physical costs to the victims by allowing such behavior. This seems backwards to me and I'm not impressed with that argument.
IF a behavior is wrong and harmful (dumping toxins in the water, for instance) then it doesn't MATTER how much it costs the businesses involved to NOT engage in that behavior, it's just what is expected.
You see the problem there?
"My first question is, did you post it because you agree with me, or disagree?"
Neither.
I'm just looking for clarity on why you think Obama is a socialist. You did a good job of addressing Jensen's points. It's a little clearer to me now why you think Obama is a socialist, but Obama is not considered a socialist by actual Socialists. I have read articles written by Socialists, which were more indepth than the Jensen article, but I've not had the time to research to find them. This was one I found quickly that seemed to be well written. Jensen denies he is a socialist.
When Bush was in office the left accused him of being a fascist. Article after article was written to prove it even pointing to the 14 Characterists of Fascism by Lawrence Britt as proof positive.
The left in their protests carried the exact same signs of Bush that the Tea Partiers are now carrying of Obama.
To me it's just all smoke and mirrors. Games the left and right play with no real basis to back any of it up.
I'm curious, do you support privatization of Social Security, Medicare, Water, Postal Service, Education, etc.?
FYI Marshall, I do agree with the second article I linked to.
Marty,
I haven't gotten the chance to go over the second article yet. Unlike Dan, I read the links people offer to make their cases. He obviously hasn't read enough of those I've offered to entitle him to continue on the same course I've repeatedly insisted I won't drive.
As to Jensen, I don't think he knows WHAT he is based on his description of capitalism and his insistance that Barry ISN'T a socialist. You need to keep in mind my position. All liberalism is socialism because what they intend to do so "improve" life is done in a socialist manner. The degree to which it is TOTAL socialism is not the point. Liberals believe they need to help people, but they can't by their methods without controlling other people. This is not the same as Dan's goofy insistence that I'm referring to laws for criminal acts like murder, rape or dumping toxins in rivers. But it's clear in the support of graduating taxes and the insistence that somehow because one person isn't succeeding it must be because of the one who is, so that second person needs to hand off some of his hard earned profits to balance the scales.
Therein lies the problem. Libs think there are scales to be balanced. The only equality is equality of the application of the law. All else is based on personal ability, desire and perserverance. The numbers of people who have gone from next to nothing to grand wealth is the story of this nation and the manifestation of what it's supposed to be about. Libs call it greed. That's a lie. Lib envy is real, however and the lie they tell is proof.
So the tyranny and fascism are in the need to be so controlling, to satisfy the desire to solve every problem instead of allowing the market and populace to solve it themselves, the desire to prevent the unexpected from happening.
What we might want to do in this discussion is to perhaps allow you or Dan or Jim to present an example of "conservative fascism", and I'll demonstrate why it isn't (or wasn't).
But for Dan's course, I simpply don't have the time to peruse thousands of regulations to determine which are overkill and which aren't. This discussion doesn't require that. Especially if Dan won't read ALL of what I offer in the links I've posted.
"The numbers of people who have gone from next to nothing to grand wealth is the story of this nation and the manifestation of what it's supposed to be about. Libs call it greed. That's a lie. Lib envy is real, however and the lie they tell is proof."
Hmm...the second article is about greed. When you get a chance, I would like your take on it and also the answers to my questions at the end of my last comment.
Thanks.
I'll be happy to do so, but it will have to be later tonight or tomorrow.
For now, while I have a moment, I'd like to address the issue of definitions. Something occurred to me that I think shows my use of words like "socialist/ism", "tyranny" and "fascism" is justified and appropriate.
Marty mentioned her father's service and describing him thusly: "...a WWII hero and Bronze Star recipient...". Curious, I looke up awards like the Bronze Star and found it's a few off the top. Now, I'm not disputing the fact that her father was heroic. At the very least, he was deemed to have provided "meritorius service" worthy of the award. BUT, when reviewing the criteria under which such awards are bestowed, one finds that they all (at least the top half dozen or so) identical with one caveat: Degrees. That is, Marty's father was awarded the Bronze Star because his heroism, or meritorious service, did not rise to the level necessary to be awarded the next medal up the list. BUT, his actions were more heroic or meritorious than those who were awarded the medal(s) lower on the list.
One can be heroic to an extent that would impress most reasonable people. I believe that anyone who enlists in the military without any guarantees that they will NOT be placed in harm's way is heroic for enlisting anyway. Yet, not all who enlist while lacking such guarantees is not worthy of a medal of such stature. In a war zone, anyone can be killed or wounded as a result of enemy action, but not all will be worthy of medals less than the Bronze Star, much less the Congressional Medal of Honor. Yet it is not out of the bounds of proper word usage to call anyone who enlists a hero, much less is it so to call anyone who serves in a war zone a hero, much less is it so to call anyone who is engaged in a fire fight a hero, and on and on until one risks all, jumps head first into certain death to save the lives of his fellow soldiers, whether he dies or not---the ultimate hero. Is not the average enlisted man worthy of the word "hero" on ANY level? I think he is. Certainly a Bronze Star winner, even though his actions did not merit the CMH.
In the same way, there are degrees of tyranny, degrees of fascism, degrees of socialism, communism and liberalism is the lesser degree of each. It is so by virtue of what it means to everyone else when liberal policies are enacted.
Oddly enough, though the opposite direction suggests that anarchy is the extreme of the right-wing direction, there really is no "degrees" of anarchy. There is either anarchy or there isn't. No in betweens. Conservatives want to limit the power of the federal gov't in the same way the founders did, but they never want a society with NO law. But to add laws becomes, intentionally or not, more tyrannical, more fascistic. This is so because it puts more power in the gov't to direct the lives of the people. This is the antithesis of the American way. And it's the sort of thing against which Tea Party type protests are organizing and marching.
Marshall, you speaking of Sarah Palin: "Yet at this point, I am convinced beyond any shadow of a doubt that this country would be in better shape if she WAS the president."
In doing more research I found something interesting. An article Ask the card-carrying socialists: Is Obama one of them?:
Frank Llewellyn, National Director of the Democratic Socialissts of America says Obama isn't even a liberal.
"The argument over Obama's ideology may rage on, but at least one socialist says another prominent politician ought to be inserted into the debate.
Llewellyn, the national director of the Democratic Socialists of America, says he was struck by one player in the 2008 presidential elections who displayed more socialistic leanings than Obama.
This candidate raised taxes on the big oil companies, and sent the revenue to the people.
If you want to learn something about spreading the wealth, Llewellyn says, don't look to Obama.
'To be honest, the most socialist candidate in the 2008 election was Sarah Palin.'"
Art, one of the best (Possibly the best)examples of Government meddling causing more harm than good is the overreaction to Rachel Carson's book, "Silent Spring". Because of Ms Carson's lies regarding DDT and other insecticides, millions of people in Africa have died due to diseases carried by mosquitoes and other pests that otherwise would have been significantly reduced.
Liberals like Dan have, over the years since Carson's anti-life- saving-chemical book was published, have been all too happy to believe the tripe she posited without researching her claims thoroughly.
As a result of Carson's book, DDT, Clordane, Malathion, and many other insecticides have been banned from use, resulting in millions of children in Africa and elsewhere dying from Malaria, Yellow Fever, and hundreds of other diseases that are carried by insects.
Before Clordane was banned in America for supposedly being hazardous, I used it on a daily basis, in my capacity as an exterminator, often spraying myself thoroughly with no (that's NONE, Dan)negative effects whatsoever. here's more about Carson\'s lies..
Read the entire article, though it is rather lengthy. I had only read a short part of the beginning before I posted the link in my previous comment. It gets even more ridiculous as it goes on.
Pay especially close attention to the last paragraph:
"No matter how deceitful her prose, however, the influence of Carson’s Silent Spring has been very great and it continues 30 years later to shape environmentalist propaganda and fund-raising as well as U.S. policy."
Yep! Government over regulation is no problem at all.
Dan, there is a simpler way to prevent poisoning people with polluted water without Government overkill regulations:
Don't drink the water directly from the rivers, ponds, lakes, creeks, etc. Drink purified water.
There! Wasn't that easy? And it doesn't cost millions in environmental funds. In fact, in a capitalist system, it earns money.
What a concept!
And, it allows people to choose to drink polluted water or purified water if they want!
That's freedom, Dan. Freedom to choose how you want to live your life. Freedom to be stupid if that's what floats your boat.
What a country!
Mark, I'm guessing you don't know much about how water works. If a company or person dumps toxins into the water, it gets into the water system. From there, many people (at least the poor and middle class folk in the Appalachian area) draw water from wells.
Telling them to drink purified water is like saying, "let them eat cake." That is a fine solution if you have limitless money. Otherwise, water costs. Your answer might work for the wealthy, but not for the rest of the folk in the region.
But setting that aside, let me ask you the simple questions that Marshall won't answer: Do we or do we not criminalize some behavior because it is wrong, period? I'm almost certain you agree with criminalizing rape, not just telling the rape victims to sue their assailants later, right?
Why do we do this? Because some things are wrong. Why are they wrong? Because they violate another person's right to life, liberty, their own property.
We have laws AGAINST doing such a thing. Now, I know Marshall got all in a huff because I didn't just presume I knew what he was thinking, so let me clarify with you:
1. You DO agree, don't you, that some harmful behaviors OUGHT to be criminalized, because they are a violation of our rights as human beings?
That is, it IS okay to have laws against harmful behavior, we agree on that point, yes? And that one can support such laws and not be a fascist, right?
2. Then are you suggesting that IF it's okay to criminalize harmful behavior, that we ought NOT criminalize dumping toxic waste? OR do you agree that we are right to criminalize at least SOME actions that cause environmental harm?
3. Regardless of your answer there, what do you think the criteria should be for creating laws and criminalizing harmful actions? For me, the key is HARM. We do not have the right to take away someone else's life or health. Actions that threaten another's life and health is rightly criminalized or at least regulated.
Do you disagree?
Dan, Art hasn't refused to answer your stupid question. He just isn't giving you and answer you can argue with.
Why? Because the answer is obvious.
Of course there are some behaviors that should be criminalized, but that isn't what he's saying and you very well know that.
We are saying there are too many unecessary laws that cause the reduction in our basic liberties.
Both Art and I have pointed to specific examples of government over regulation, based on Government overkill. And yet, you persist in trying to get us to say we think murder and rape and other obvious common sense laws are superfluous. Well, that aint gonna happen because, as we both have already said, some laws are justified.
I know you know this.
There. Asked and answered. Again.
Now, why don't you address all the harm that was caused by Liberal icon Rachel Carson's book of lies?
Oh, that's right. You don't read the links we provide to support our points. You only expect us to read yours.
Or explain why calling certain crimes that are already prosecutable without the label "hate crimes" need to have that label attached to them.
I'm glad to get that clarification from you. We ALL agree that laws are good and that one can support the criminalization of harmful behavior and not be fascist.
This, then, is what still remains unanswered:
Regardless of your answer there, what do you think the criteria should be for creating laws and criminalizing harmful actions? For me, the key is HARM. We do not have the right to take away someone else's life or health. Actions that threaten another's life and health is rightly criminalized or at least regulated.
Do you disagree?
More on the Rachel Carson (mostly) non-issue pending...
re: Rachel Carson and the myth that she led to "liberal policies" that led to the death of millions...
1. ...there is no global DDT ban. DDT is indeed banned in the U.S., but malaria isn’t exactly a pressing issue here. If it ever were, the ban contains an exception for matters of public health. Meanwhile, it’s perfectly legal—and indeed, used—in many other countries: 10 out of the 17 African nations that currently conduct indoor spraying use DDT
2. DDT use has decreased enormously, but not because of a ban. The real reason is simple, although not one conservatives are particularly fond of: evolution. Mosquito populations rapidly develop resistance to DDT...
3. “No responsible person contends that insect-borne disease should be ignored,” Carson wrote in Silent Spring. “The question that has now urgently presented itself is whether it is either wise or responsible to attack the problem by methods that are rapidly making it worse. . . . Resistance to insecticides by mosquitoes . . . has surged upwards at an astounding rate.”
4. despite what is claimed by the right, DDT itself is quite harmful. Studies have suggested that prenatal exposure to DDT leads to significant decreases in mental and physical functioning among young children...
5. For another, resistance is deadly. Not only has DDT’s overuse made it ineffective, but, as noted, it has led mosquitoes to evolve “cross-resistance”: resistance not only to DDT but also to other insecticides, including those with less dangerous environmental effects.
6. And perhaps most importantly, the pro-DDT line is a vast distraction. There are numerous other techniques for dealing with malaria: alternative insecticides, bed nets and a combination of drugs called artemisinin-based combination therapy, or ACT.
All this information and more disputing the Carson mythology developed by Rightwingers, along with the citations, can be found at fair.org.
In short: The evidence at the time (and now) showed that DDT was harmful. We ALL agree that it is good and reasonable and NOT fascist to create laws limiting, banning or regulating that which is harmful.
And so I ask: We've already established the harm. What reason would you have for overruling common sense banning or regulating of the harmful? What criteria would you have for NOT criminalizing or regulating harmful behavior.
Since we ALL AGREE that criminalizing/regulating harmful actions is a good civic thing to do, what reason would you offer for ignoring the harm and letting folk do the harmful actions, anyway, despite what YOU AGREE is right?
This is the hole that I see in your argument that is gaping and massive.
If you don't like Fair.org, how about the EPA?
But Carson did not call for the abandonment of all chemical pesticides. She asked for a ban on the more insidious, long-lasting chemicals like DDT, against which there was increasing evidence of harmful effects to many living things.
She asked also that the other chemicals be used more judiciously and that the regulations for their manufacture and sale be considerably tightened.
Finally, she asked that scientists redouble their efforts to find alternative methods for fighting pests, such as biological controls, so that the flow of deadly poisons into the environment might be restricted.
1. The evidence was and is there.
2. Some poisons unleashed in the environment DO cause harm (sort of a no-brainer, right?)
3. If poisons in the environment cause harm, prudent, conservative behavior calls for careful use, regulated use, limited use or NO use, depending upon what research tells us. Right?
4. You have agreed with me on the regulating/criminalizing of harmful behavior, why make an exception?
More complete information on the history of the systematic attacking of Carson's book can be found here, which cites the WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION...
“Silent Spring makes frequent reference to 12 pesticides then commonly used. Since then, 8 of these have been banned for use in the United States (DDT, dieldrin, aldrin, endrin, Pentachlorophenol, toxaphene, benzene hexachloride/BHC), 2 are severely restricted in use (heptachlor, lindane), and one is considered severely hazardous (parathion). Malathion remains as a registered pesticide. DDT is still used in indoor residual spraying for malaria vector control in many parts of the world (WHO 2004).
Click on the links of some of those compounds that are now banned in the US. Note how many of them we now know are deadly. Carson was ahead of her time, not an alarmist. 92% right is pretty darn good.
Or, if you don't like fair.org, WHO or the EPA, how about Scientific American?
To be clear, I'm not saying that scientists are agreed on whether or not the potential benefits that might come by dropping poisons like DDT on our houses and food outweigh the dangers. I'm saying that it is questionable and prudence calls for falling on the side of safety.
IF DDT were the only option and we knew millions would die if we didn't poison ourselves, you might have a good example of one reason to make an exception to the "criminalize actions that cause harm" agreement we have.
But DDT is not the only option, there are/were other options.
Also, the whole issue of bugs developing resistance may argue against using it even if it were the only option, which it isn't.
I'm just calling for prudence, which is a conservative notion, and the recognition that we don't always know the consequences of our actions and this argues reasonably against free use of dangerous poisons. Regulated use? Perhaps, but carefully regulated because, you know, it IS poison.
So, are we agreed that regulations are a good thing in general WHEN we're talking about dangerous behaviors? Or even potentially dangerous behaviors, given the conservative notion of prudence?
Oh, one more...
A quick Google Scholar search of peer reviewed articles reveals that DDT has been implicated in a number of health and environmental problems.
Diabetes:
Jones, Oliver AH; Maguire, Mahon L; Griffin, Julian L (January 26, 2008). "Environmental pollution and diabetes: a neglected association" (PDF). Lancet 371 (9609): 287 288.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6T1B-4RNK38J-B-1&_cdi=4886&_user=4420&_orig=browse&_coverDate=02%2F01%2F2008&_sk=996280390&view=c&wchp=dGLbVtb-zSkzS&md5=49ceb153cf41f91572ac41664bcf057e&ie=/sdarticle.pdf
^ Turyk, Mary (March 6, 2009). "Organochlorine Exposure and Incidence of Diabetes in a Cohort of Great Lakes Sport Fish Consumers". Environ. Health Perspect.. http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2009/0800281/abstract.html.
http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/fetchArticle.action?articleURI=info:doi/10.1289/ehp.0800281
Other Health Hazards Reported
Breast Cancer
Cohn BA, Wolff MS, Cirillo PM, Sholtz RI (October 2007). "DDT and breast cancer in young women: new data on the significance of age at exposure". Environ. Health Perspect. 115 (10)
Endocrine System Pathologies:
Rogan WJ, Ragan NB (2003). "Evidence of effects of environmental chemicals on the endocrine system in children". Pediatrics 112 (1 Pt 2): 247 52
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12837917
Miscarriages:
Chen A, Rogan WJ (2003). "Nonmalarial infant deaths and DDT use for malaria control". Emerging Infect. Dis. 9 (8): 960 4.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12967494
Egg Shell Thinning
Lundholm, C.E. (1997). "DDE-Induced eggshell thinning in birds". Comp Biochem Physiol C Pharmacol Toxicol Endocrinol 118 (118)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1874172/
Holm L, Blomqvist A, Brandt I, Brunstr�m B, Ridderstr�le Y, Berg C (October 2006). "Embryonic exposure to o,p'-DDT causes eggshell thinning and altered shell gland carbonic anhydrase expression in the domestic hen". Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 25 (10): 2787 93.
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/122675732/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
You can dig out the citations if you wish.
No Dan, "We" have NOT established DDT is harmful.
We logical thinking people have established that DDT, Chlordane, Malathion, Dursban, Diazanon, Ficam W, among many other insecticides, are not all all harmful to people, regardless of what your Liberally biased websites say.
I was an exterminator back in the days when all (except DDT)of those insecticides were used for control of pests. I can't count the number of times I accidentally sprayed myself with them, and I have suffered no harmful side effects at all. In fact, I fathered 3 healthy children after my "exposure" to these harmless chemicals.
Furthermore, I have also been a lawn service technician and used herbicides and weed killer, which I have also accidentally doused myself with on numerous occasions, and suffered no harmful effects from them, either. In fact, at 58 years of age, I'll bet I'm healthier than you.
Who are you going to believe? Liberal environmentalist nuts who have absolutely no experience or knowledge of these insecticides, and Rachel Carson, who's book has been thoroughly and methodically discredited by real scientists (Per the link I provided previously, which you obviously didn't read)as nothing but a pack of fear mongering lies, or someone who has had real experience with the chemicals and not suffered any harmful side effects?
I am not going to follow the link you provided, mainly because you don't follow links we provide, but also, because I know what kinds of stupid Liberal environmental whacko web sites you get your info from.
OH, Good God, Dan! What doesn't cause Cancer and Diabetes if you believe all these whiny environmental alarmists?
I am so sick of all these whiny crybaby so-called experts that don't know their nether regions from a hole in the ground.
Think for yourself, man! Use your common sense, if you have any.
If I believed only a fraction of the crap spewing out of these so-called experts pie holes, I would be hiding under my bed, stuffing my face with every kind of vitamin known to man, and living on nothing but tofu and rice cakes.
I'll say it again, because it bears repeating: At 58 years of age, I bet I'm healthier than you are, and I eat and drink whatever I want and never worry one second about the environment or any other global crisis du jour.
Perhaps that's why I am so healthy. I don't let whacko environmentalist alarmist stress me out.
How in the world did mankind survive all these thousands, possibly millions of years (depending on what whacko scientists you choose to believe), completely oblivious to all the deadly whatevers constantly bombarding them from every direction?
Use the sense God gave you, Dan, and for God's sake, stop worrying. Your only causing yourself stress.
Lighten up. Have yourself a Burger King cheeseburger and large fries fried in trans fats and try to enjoy life.
And, if you really want to improve everyone's lives, for heaven's sake, vote these Liberal Democratic idiot congresspeople out of office in November, before they have a chance to cause more damage.
I know you can agree we need to return some sanity to Washington. don't you?
Dan, tell me, how does anything, bugs included, develop a resistance to anything when it's dead? You don't think these things out, Dan.
Think logically. An insect gets sprayed by an insecticide. It dies. Then, it develops a resistance to what killed it? How does that work, Dan?
Mark, I've read the "other side" of the story about Carson. As noted, there is not universal agreement on the science about the dangers of DDT, but there is plenty of evidence of its harm to support prudence.
Again, I just provided you with dozens of links to actual science reports on the topic.
And so, once again, I ask you:
WHAT should be the criteria for deciding when to criminalize/regulate harmful actions?
Is it a whimsical thing for you? That is, is it when Mark "feels" like this is "probably" safe and not harmful because "it just doesn't seem to me like it's harmful?"
Surely you would not be so emotional and subjective and whimsical about deciding law, would you? And even if you were (which I doubt), surely you understand that most people can't leave it to Mark to whimsically make the call.
So, IF we have some studies/reports/science/evidence suggesting that behavior X may cause harm, AND if we agree that it is right to criminalize/regulate that which might cause harm, what rules/criteria would you have for making that call?
I am opposed to legislation by whimsy and anecdotal evidence. I'm sure you are, too. So...?
Ah, Dan. If only you didn't advocate selectively breaking laws you don't agree with if one has a good enough reason, maybe we could take you a bit more seriously.
Or are you just saying that we shouldn't have laws that regulate immigration or that theft should be decriminalized if it the theft passes the "it's OK with Dan" test.
Craig, I could take your concerns more seriously if you'd respond when I correct your previous misunderstandings.
Our immigration rules don't pass the "harm to someone/something" test so, for me, I have a hard time taking those laws as good ones and I am fine with civil disobedience on laws that I think are unjust. I suspect you agree that it's okay to to CD for unjust laws, yes?
But regardless, I don't see what your point is here. I'm asking a simple question:
We ALL AGREE that creating laws to stop/regulate harmful actions is a good thing and NOT fascism. But some here are saying we have too many regulations. And so I'm asking the natural question:
What criteria should there be for creating laws and, if harm is one of those criteria, why would we oppose laws that stop/regulate harmful action? Based upon what? What criteria would you have for creating laws/opposing laws?
IF one wants to be taken seriously when they oppose regulations against harmful action, then it behooves you to provide some logical rationale. Whimsy and "cuz I think so" does not suffice. "Cuz it might hurt the economy" is not a legitimate reason to oppose harmful behavior. After all, criminalizing paid assassins hurts the economy, but we still criminalize it because it causes harm.
What that has to do with CD, I don't know.
Of course, no one has to answer the question. One's opposition to some laws can be entirely whimsical and subjective and emotional and that's fine if that's what they want, but you can't reasonably expect people to go along with "whimsy" as a reason to oppose law.
"Our immigration rules don't pass the "harm to someone/something" test so..."? This you'll have to explain to me.
As far as laws like those against the use of DDT, I can only liken it to a recent regulation that outlawed ephedrin. Ephedrin is a substance that was used in many diet supplements. Some idiot took extreme quantities of ephedrin, far beyond the recommneded dosage, and died or something. There were a few, and I mean "a FEW" other instances where improper usage, otherwise known as "abuse", occurred. There were absolutely no known cases of harm done to anyone following recommneded dosage instructions. Yet, because of what happens when not used correctly, the FDA banned it and millions who found its use beneficial were denied. This is merely one case of over-regulation that is based on harmful effects of something not harmful if used properly. Poor science and likely the difference between Dan's "facts" and Mark's.
Finished all my links, yet, Dan?
Oh, I like this one:
"Our immigration rules don't pass the "harm to someone/something" test so, for me..."
This statement might just take over the second spot on "Dan's stupid statements" list.
So, the sucking of billions of dollars out of our economy by paying illegals welfare benefits, hospital emergency room bills, free education, etc, isn't harmful?
Drug wars spilling over into American cities and towns, when dozens of innocent American civilians are getting caught in the crossfire and being slaughtered isn't harmful?
Illegal aliens sneaking across our borders to lay waste to the land, murder American citizens, steal, set firs, run drugs, etc, etc, etc isn't harmful???
Is that what you are saying, you moron?
Geeeez, I can't take this anymore, Art. Ban me and delete my comments if you want. Dan is an idiot.
Illegal aliens sneaking across our borders to lay waste to the land, murder American citizens, steal, set firs, run drugs, etc, etc, etc isn't harmful???
Marshall would be right to point out that the bad behavior or actions of a few do not justify a law for the rest, in at least this case. Most, I would guess, immigrants are just looking for a way to make a living and stay alive and get money back home to their loved ones. You want to criminalize murder and setting "firs"? We already have laws for that.
You just want to add law upon law, it would appear to penalize the innocent, even though the guilty will just ignore the laws.
Your argument makes sense in this case. I hope you can hear your own wisdom in these words as it relates to "illegal" immigration.
AND STILL no one has answered the question: WHAT criteria would you have for when to pass laws and when not to.
And so, given that, I can only see that you all are having an emotional, whimsy-based rational for sometimes creating laws and sometimes laws are "fascism," no order or logic to your "system," no system as far as I can see.
So, rant away then, but just know that most people won't be convinced that criminalizing harmful action is "fascism" based solely upon your whimsical emotions.
If you would ever try to make a logic-based case for your position, let me know. In the meantime, I'll leave this discussion for you since there is no discussion possible when your entire argument comes down to "I FEEL like..." whimsy.
As to your Ephedra example, Marshall, I know nothing about Ephedra, so I went to medical experts - the AMA...
Just a little over a year ago, the Food and Drug Administration wisely banned the sale of products that contain the dietary supplement ephedra, an amphetamine-like herb used for weight loss.
This prohibition came in the wake of reports to the FDA of more than 18,000 adverse events and an estimated 100 deaths tied to ephedra. When the agency's action became official, it was widely heralded as a big consumer-protection victory...
The AMA, which has policy in strong support of the complete ban on ephedra alkaloids in dietary supplements, was deeply disappointed by the decision. The Association believes it will put America's patients back in harm's way.
Bottom line [according to the AMA]: Dietary supplements containing ephedra carry serious -- even fatal -- health risks, including seizure, stroke, psychiatric problems and heart attack. The 2003 death of 23-year-old Baltimore Orioles pitcher Steve Belcher, for instance, became a focal point in the ephedra debate. A range of scientific evidence underscores these hazards, and they apply even to very healthy people.
source
Now, if the experts in medicine have looked at STUDIES and REAL WORLD experiences and have concluded that HARM HAS COME because of this medicine, then prudence dictates that it be banned or regulated. WE ALL AGREE that the US has legitimate reason to criminalize/regulate harmful actions and this IS a harmful substance.
So, why would you contradict your own stated belief that it is OKAY to regulate that which is harmful?
This is the question that remains unanswered and that is the huge hole in your stance.
Now, rant on. Let me know if you want to talk about this based upon reason, not whimsy.
Okay, one more: IF you reject the AMA and APA and EPA and all the expert opinions on their respective areas, who SHOULD we listen to on matters we're not educated upon?
You're not a doctor and aren't able to make a reasonable medical conclusion. Do you accept expert opinion and, if not, why not? Who offers opinions that count?
And, if your answer is, we shouldn't trust the AMA (or APA or EPA0 but instead, some guy you read on the internet: Do you really think that is rational and that people would buy into that?
This is another gaping whole in your position, seems to me.
Dan,
Now, apparently, you've decided that being a complete asshole is the proper method of debate. I haven't been "ranting on" in the least, as I've provided quite a bit of support for my position regarding the issue of overregulation. YOU think you can set the parameters of the conversation, determining who is the definitive expert and when. Lefties so often rage against doctors, insurers, "BIG PHARMA" when it suits their arguments and then those same people are demonic when it helps other arguments. You can't have it both ways.
Also, the conversation doesn't require or demand that we spend time in determining the exact criteria for setting each and every law because different actions require their own sets of criteria. The issue here is going too far for the general good that harm is done by doing so. I linked to a discussion on environmental overkill with a more in depth analysis attached that was a perfect explanation for our position regarding overregulation. I doubt you've read it yet.
The issue of ephedra is a good example. I was with a company that sold a dietary product made with ephedra. THOUSANDS of people used the product with no adverse affects. The company received NO complainst related to the use of the product in terms of harm done to anyone. The ONLY cases known at the time of the ban were abuse cases. I did not mention the odd case of allergic reaction or people who had other conditions that were aggravated by a product for which they did not seek doctor advise. The worst that should have happened should have been making ephedra products by perscription, but they just banned it. You apparently believe that if any product has mere potential for harm, it should be banned or regulated out of existence. That would leave us with nothing, for everything can cause harm and can be proven to cause harm and most things still on the market HAVE been shown to cause harm in one way or another. Too much Vitamin A can kill you. Ban it? Why not? It can cause harm, can't it? Do you not think that they're just guessing that it can kill you, or perhaps maybe a few people died from taking too much. All the cleaning products, personal hygeine, cosmetics and other things in your home are made with poisonous substances (unless you get yours from sources like mine). You breath, absorb and ingest harmful substances all the time.
The question is not the criteria by which WE would regulate products or behaviors, it's the criteria by which people like YOU would regulate and ban them. You insist on using "do no harm", as if that's some kind of deep thought. DUH! As my example in my links have shown, if you had taken the time to read them, there comes a point of greatly diminishing returns, whereby the actions taken to "do no harm" have reached its peak of efficiency and further efforts make no further gains that justify the expense and sacrifice to the populace, and worse, cause harm by doing so, either to the economy or directly to the health of the people by restricting their actions.
more---
I would also question placing groups like the AMA on such a pedestal that their opinions cannot be questioned by other knowledgable sources. How long have they dismissed chiropractic therapies before they changed their tune? How often do they reverse course on what is or isn't good for our health? I've had personal experience with people who have been told by traditional medicial practioners, specialists in their field, that they should make arrangements. These same people looked at alternative medicine and they now live completely healed of their afflictions.
The issue here is that you favor draconian restrictions on the freedom of an individual to live his own life. You use "expert" testimony to support your twisted fascistic beliefs and ignore and dismiss other experts with different views. No one here has called for NO law, but only that the notion that the best gov't is the one that governs least. Mark might be willing to take that to an extreme and then work backwards. I understand that perfectly. He and I don't feel the need to have some gov't boob decide every step for us. WE know that most people are perfectly capable of watching out for their own selves and adding laws to protect the stupid only infringes on the freedoms of the rest of us.
You are part of the tyranny that has inflicted Obamacare on the nation, has pushed prices of health care up, has pushed the exploration of and drilling for oil out into the middle of the ocean, that has left millions of people to live at the mercy of the worst of our species by taking away their GOD-GIVEN right to protect THEMSELVES, there loved ones and their property.
People like you have denied me the Christian civility of being assumed innocent and good by restricting my right bear arms, and my freedom to have a drink, to eat what gives me pleasure, to do a number of things that used to be available, but have been taken away by over-zealous busy-bodies. (And the left DARES accuse the right of being such).
More---
As to immigration, our current laws do no one any harm. NONE WHATSOEVER. When people break the law, such as entering the country illegally, any harm they sustain is a result of their own illegal actions. Our current laws are set up as protections of the people already LEGALLY here in this country. What goes on with the people outside our borders is not the concern of our immigration laws and to suppose that they should be changed for their benefit is simply about as stupid a position as one could possibly hold.
“Craig, I could take your concerns more seriously if you'd respond when I correct your previous misunderstandings.”
Dan, I know this will come as a surprise to you, but I have a life outside of this blog. It happens that on occasion I might make a comment, then be away for an extended length of time. In this case the thread had moved beyond our exchange, and I felt it served no purpose to return to an subject that the conversation had moved past. I know you understand this phenomenon as you have remonstrated with me when I was so bold as to question your lack of response to something or other. I guess you have the option of responding in Christian grace or not, but for my part I apologize for letting life get in the way.
“Our immigration rules don't pass the "harm to someone/something" test so, for me, I have a hard time taking those laws as good ones and I am fine with civil disobedience on laws that I think are unjust. I suspect you agree that it's okay to CD for unjust laws, yes?”
So, are you suggesting some sort of extremely narrow definition of harm? Are you limiting the concept of harm to only the physical? Are you suggesting that someone who enters this country illegally and avails themselves of our social services does no harm to society? Are you suggesting that theft harms no one? I would agree that there is a place for CD, however what we see with immigration is not CD. Further, as Marshall points out elsewhere, our immigration laws are for the benefit of those who have entered this country legally and who are citizens. Further, if a Mexican citizen crosses into the US illegally, he/she is not punished they are returned to the country where they hold citizenship. How is this possibly unjust? Are some illegals treated differently under the law?
“But regardless, I don't see what your point is here. I'm asking a simple question:”
My point is that your commitment to the rule of law is in direct proportion to whether or not the law in question fits within your worldview.
“We ALL AGREE that creating laws to stop/regulate harmful actions is a good thing and NOT fascism.”
Since no one is arguing any differently what is your point. Unless it is that you get to decide what constitutes harm.
“ But some here are saying we have too many regulations”
Yes, it is entirely reasonable to conclude that there are too many regulations. For grins I’ll include an example of harmful laws/regulations.
My state banned smoking throughout the entire state. This harms smokers in that it removes their right to engage in this behavior. It harms business owners who are being dictated to as to how they can use their private property, It also harms business by giving businesses in neighboring states an advantage. It harms the state by losing businesses as well as tax revenue.
“And so I'm asking the natural question: What criteria should there be for creating laws and, if harm is one of those criteria, why would we oppose laws that stop/regulate harmful action?”
Since no one is suggesting the harm is not one possible way to determine laws, why do you insist that someone is asserting that? Further, why should we accept your narrow definition of harm as the only option?
“Based upon what? What criteria would you have for creating laws/opposing laws?”
I personaly would use a number of criteria, including harm, proportionality, respect for existing law just for starters.
“IF one wants to be taken seriously when they oppose regulations against harmful action, then it behooves you to provide some logical rationale. Whimsy and "cuz I think so" does not suffice. "Cuz it might hurt the economy" is not a legitimate reason to oppose harmful behavior. After all, criminalizing paid assassins hurts the economy, but we still criminalize it because it causes harm.”
Then it’s a good thing no one but you is doing that. Certainly no one has suggested decriminalizing assassination. You are the one who has advocated breaking laws that hurt people not us (if you think theft doesn’t hurt, I’d love to let you talk to my mom.).
“What that has to do with CD, I don't know.”
Since you brought up CD, how can anyone else answer your questions?
“Of course, no one has to answer the question. One's opposition to some laws can be entirely whimsical and subjective and emotional and that's fine if that's what they want, but you can't reasonably expect people to go along with "whimsy" as a reason to oppose law.”
Again, since no one is proposing what you are suggesting why do you continue to repeat this baseless comment? Why not address what has actually been proposed?
Just a few thoughts.
It's late as I read your last comments, Craig, and I really don't remember what "CD" is. Could you enlighten a brutha? I don't want to review all 195 comments to find the answer. Thanks.
(Still trying to find time to read Marty's links.)
Marshall,
Somehow it seems the Dan has equated those who enter our country illegally with some form of civil disobedience. Dan abbreviated that as CD and I followed suit. Sorry for the confusion.
One more: Seriously guys, if you have a question about any of my positions, ask about it. You all have offered a dozen or so guesses as to what I have said or believe and not one of them reflects my beliefs or what I have said.
Same old whine, Dan. In this case, which "guess" has your panties in a twist this time? As seems to be clear, you don't like the way your own positions sound when said back to you. If you say, "I think we should be nice to each other.", it seems you'd only be satisified if we repeat those very words, verbatim, back to you. But when you expound on your statement, it tells us something different, and your meaning behind the words differ from ours. But you insist you're still saying, "I think we should be nice to each other." So as we've always maintained, you've only yourself to blame.
As to CD, you implied that our immigration laws cause harm. If you didn't mean that, you should have chosen your words better. Are you now saying that illegals are justified in ignoring our borders and immigration protocols, or aren't you?
Marty,
I've just finished reading your second link. I find this just as goofy as the first. The major issue I have with this article is the (not so) underlying message that those without are suffering as a result of those who have. Worse, is Astore's comparison of Americans with corrupt Iraqi and Afghani politicians. Even as regards my feelings for Obama, I haven't yet said he's bilking America for his own gain ala Bernie Madoff.
As if that wasn't enough, he provides links that don't do more than make the same accusations HE does. One example is the link to the article describing the 10 "most vicious" war profiteers. First of all, are companies working to aid and supply our military and its efforts to do so for free? Does any compensation for such aid automatically justify the use of the term "war profiteer"? And what makes them or their actions "most vicious"? Astore doesn't say anymore than his link does. They simply SAY that these companies are diggin' the war for the profit potential by such terms, but not backing up the charges. They do not say whether other companies can do the work better and for less. They do not say if the companies' work is unnecessary. They do not say what a legitimate charge for their services would be. They only accuse them of profiting by the suffering of those in the war-torn countries. How cowardly and slanderous.
Astore moves on to former military personnel acting as consultants and advisors, sometimes for the military itself, and again, the link doesn't say anything as regards why they are paid as they are, if they are doing wrong in any way, or showing that they may be undeserving of what they are earning.
Astore speaks of corporate presidents and owner making X% more than their employees. He speaks of Wal-mart for example. I wonder how much any Wal-mart employee has sacificed, sweated and invested in creating a corporation that employs so many people and provides so many products as prices low-income people can afford. I wonder what any employee has done to entitle them to wages equal to, or even approaching what the founder makes from his efforts.
And of course, what good liberal/socialist could pass up a chance to bash Sarah Palin? And this is precious:
"Yet, if this is socialism, why are private health insurers the government's go-to guys for healthcare coverage? If this is fascism, why haven't the secret police rounded up tea partiers and progressive critics as well and sent them to the lager or the gulag?"
For the first question, private insurers are chumps for health care coverage. Obamacare will squeeze them out entirely. As to tea partiers being rounded up, this is Trabue-level understanding. At the same time, we know that "Fairness Doctrine" variations have been floated around forever from the left and Barry's FCC appointments have put forth plans for limiting right-wing speech. And of course, the admin demonizes tea partiers, as does every goofy leftist who gets the chance.
IF you truly agree with this article, you'll need to resolve the questions I've put forth here, as well as others I've not chosen to mention, in order to have a leg upon which you can honestly stand.
Post a Comment