 |
| (c) André Karwath |
Role Reversals
The New Left redefined the term ‘liberal’ at the same time
that the Moral Majority redefined the term ‘conservative’. Where the founding fathers adhered to
classical liberalism, advocating civil liberties, political freedom, limited
government, economic freedom, and republicanism, liberals of today stand
virtually as the antithesis of what was once liberalism. Likewise, the conservative movement in this
country that was built upon maintaining the libertarian and republican
principals of our founders has made a pronounced shift towards the theocratic right. Both parties have also become more Federalist,
advocating a larger centralized government with more power and control to the
disadvantage of our civil liberties and our states.
“It is the job of centralized government (in peacetime) to protect its citizens’ lives, liberty and property. All other activities of government tend to diminish freedom and hamper progress. The growth of government (the dominant social feature of this century) must be fought relentlessly. In this great social conflict of the era, we are, without reservations, on the libertarian side.” William F. Buckley, 1955.
Originally, conservatives in the United
States
The Chinese Fire Drill
The shift in conservatism within the Republican Party from
classical liberal and republican ideals to the social conservatism of today can
be traced directly back to the political party controversies of the sixties and
seventies. With Goldwater Republicans stressing
Judeo-Christian values in opposition to communism, the Republican Party became
more attractive to Southern Democrats and evangelicals.
As the Republican Party moved towards the authoritarian right,
libertarians moved to the left finding refuge in the ‘new’ Democratic Party or
within their own nascent Libertarian party.
Today's Right
From Falwell’s Moral Majority, to Robertson’s Christian
Coalition, to Dobson’s Family Research Council, to Graham’s Vote Biblical
Values campaign the Christian Right has a pronounced influence on the
Republican Party platform. The key
question we need to ask ourselves is this pronounced influence positive or
negative when it comes to getting out the voters and getting the vote? Todd Akin, Richard Mourdock, Linda McMahon, Tom
Smith, and John Koster all embroiled themselves in controversy over abortion
and rape and all fell flat on Election Day, soundly trounced by their
pro-choice Democratic opposition.
The critical issues facing our nation today are not
religious in nature they are financial, economic, libertarian, and republican,
the Republican Party needs to return to its roots. We are not the Christian Reform Party! If we attempt to be, we will continue to get our ass handed to us by the electorate.
This article kicks off a series examining where we came from, where we are, and perhaps where we need to go. We seriously need to decide what is most important to the Republican Party and the nation, and what we can and are willing to compromise on. Look for the pansy to highlight articles on this them, and as a second added benefit I am sure it will separate out those of us too immature to resist 'pansy' jokes.
This article kicks off a series examining where we came from, where we are, and perhaps where we need to go. We seriously need to decide what is most important to the Republican Party and the nation, and what we can and are willing to compromise on. Look for the pansy to highlight articles on this them, and as a second added benefit I am sure it will separate out those of us too immature to resist 'pansy' jokes.
Cheers!
136 comments:
Excellent post, and words that need to be heeded by the GOP establishment.
Two paths can be chosen; one that defends religious freedom alongside the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.....or the path that places religious tenets to the fore....at the expense of liberty.
One is politically and morally tenable, the other sounds a death knell.
Finntann, scapegoating social conservatives is illiberal on its face.
Face it, YOU are a major part of the problem, NOT of the solution.
Liberalism is ALL about maintaining DIVERSE, NOT monolithic viewpoints. If you can't tolerate the presence of a Todd Akin in your leadership, forget about your ability to support a wholly "empirical" leader.
For there is one thing that IS certain about empirical knowledge. It will CHANGE.
Freethought is a philosophical viewpoint that holds opinions should be formed on the basis of logic, reason and empiricism and not authority, tradition, or other dogmas.
Oooops. Seems logic is merely an old tradition based upon a falsehood...
Nietzsche, "Beyond Good and Evil"
111 - Origin of the Logical. Where has logic originated in men's heads? Undoubtedly out of the illogical, the domain of which must originally have been immense. But numberless beings who reasoned otherwise than we do at present, perished; albeit that they may have come nearer to truth than we! Whoever, for example, could not discern the "like" often enough with regard to food, and with regard to animals dangerous to him, whoever, therefore, deduced too slowly, or was too circumspect in his deductions, had smaller probability of survival than he who in all similar cases immediately divined the equality. The preponderating inclination, however, to deal with the similar as the equal - an illogical inclination, for there is no thing equal in itself - first created the whole basis of logic. It was just so (in order that the conception of substance should originate, this being indispensable to logic, although in the strictest sense nothing actual corresponds to it) that for a long period the changing process in things had to be overlooked, and remain unperceived; the beings not seeing correctly had an advantage over those who saw everything "in flux." In itself every high degree of circumspection in conclusions, every skeptical inclination, is a great danger to life. No living being might have been preserved unless the contrary inclination - to affirm rather than suspend judgment, to mistake and fabricate rather than wait, to assent rather than deny, to decide rather than be in the right - had been cultivated with extra ordinary assiduity. The course of logical thought and reasoning in our modern brain corresponds to a process and struggle of impulses, which singly and in themselves are all very illogical and unjust; we experience usually only the result of the struggle so rapidly and secretly does this primitive mechanism now operate in us.
At the risk of sounding like someone in despair, I believe we have passed the point of no return.
Americans expect the federal government to provide for their every need, perceived or otherwise.
They complain when that provision comes with strings attached, but they comply in order to receive the cookies the feds have to offer (at the expense of other Americans, of course).
The old adage: "Give a man a fish and he eats for a day; teach him to fish and he eats for a lifetime" no longer applies.
erratum - "Gay Science" for BG&E
Hmmm. Thought provoking. But didn't several of our founder say that this republic and this concept of maximum freedom and minimum governmen could only survive with a moral God-fearing people?
Good luck purging the religiously insane, Finntann.
The party courted them and the party is stuck with them. The "southern strategy" not looking so good these days?
Admit it, if it hadn't have been for redistricting you would probably also have lost the House. I'm just saying, the Dems would have gerrymandered if they had been in control. That's how the game is played.
But it's time to take stock of where the freaks have taken you. When a pus bag like Allen West is an icon to the party media you are going to have a problem attracting normals.
I would welcome a responsible Republican party just as I want a progressive political presence in America.
"But didn't several of our founder say that this republic and this concept of maximum freedom and minimum governmen could only survive with a moral God-fearing people?"
Yes they did, but isn't it interesting they did not codify this in the constitution?
norm-als....
B-A-A-A-A-A-A!
"Yes they did, but isn't it interesting they did not codify this in the constitution?"
Those were days in which they couldn't imagine anything different...imagine what they'd think if they saw the morality and lack of self reliance we have today.
Imagine a world where nobody had to consider this country would not be populated by a moral and God-fearing/loving people?
It's sort of like the expression 'Christian nation'...it's been made to sound like something it was never meant to mean; who ever thought this country was totally populated by CHristians? Nobody. It meant based on tenets of the Christian (and dare I say Jewish)faith, which nobody can sanely rebut (goodness, kindness, preservation of life, self-reliance),, Yet, that's the attitude today..."Christian Nation" as if it's something meaning "Get the rest out"...utterly ridiculous.
Z - There's certainly some truth to that, but it butts up squarely against a strong current of Christian nationalism on the right.
When those of that current speak of a Christian nation, they don't mean "everyone else out" [excepting Muslims maybe]...but they do mean "our way or the highway and liberties be damned".
" It meant based on tenets of the Christian (and dare I say Jewish)faith, which nobody can sanely rebut (goodness, kindness, preservation of life, self-reliance)"
Why not refer to those tenets as "rational values", as a signal that you don't mean to include the Christian tenets that plenty of us can sanely rebut?
"... which nobody can sanely rebut (goodness, kindness, preservation of life, self-reliance)"
-----
Keep on believing that you have a monopoly on those values. Utterly insane.
Keep trying to move us back to the 18th century.
Here's today's Republican platform:
Military action can accomplish political ends
Trickle down economics
Theocracy
Widening wealth disparity
----
Somehow you get a supposed Christian ethics out of that crap.
Tie a can on it.
...but they do mean "our way or the highway and liberties be damned".
Say the inventors of a secular democracy based upon the threat AND use of FORCE.
Funny, but no where is that in the Christian religion.
...but G-d forbid, Christians should ever be in a majority and choose to VOTE. Only THEN is anyone's "free will" being imposed upon based upon some INSANE legal premise, like the anus is a respectable sex organ deserving of the sanctity of marriage, and that fourteen should be the age of "consent".
Catamites for ALL! Woo-hoo!
What "rational" and "logical" determines age of consent? How about the "equality" between heterosexual and homosexual marriages.
Oh yeah, "logic".
I suppose one mistake inevitably leads to another...
Military action can accomplish political ends
It doesn't?
Who knew? Get Morsi and the PLO on the phone.
Any of you simpletons vote for theocracy last November?
Only the Obamatrons trying to get Shari'a law recognized.
Someone has quite the fascination with homosexual sex acts.....
....as well as an erroneous presumption that religious based law [sans any secular value] have not carried the very same threat AND use of FORCE.
The Inquisition is over CI. You can relax now. The Pope is no longer calling the shots. The King and Queen of Spain are.
Thank G_d for the Church of England, their priests will do whatever the King says. :)
Divorce... no problemo. Homo marriage... no problemo.
Kill babies... no problemo.
Euthanize the elderly, no problemo.
Want to marry your mother, sister, daughter, horse... no problemo.
Tradition and precedent's are tools for fools.
"Logic" alone reigns.
"Science without Religion Is Lame, Religion without Science Is Blind"
Sounds like the two cripples NEED each other.
Euripedes, "Hecuba" - I may be a slave and weak as well, but the gods are strong, and custom too which prevails o'er them, for by custom it is that we believe in them and set up bounds of right and wrong for our lives. Now if this principle, when referred to thee, is to be set at naught, and they are to escape punishment who murder guests or dare to plunder the temples of gods, then is all fairness in things human at an end.
Pascal, "Pensees" - The result of this confusion is that one affirms the essence of justice to be the authority of the legislator; another, the interest of the sovereign; another, present custom, and this is the most sure. Nothing, according to reason alone, is just in itself; all changes with time. CUSTOM CREATES THE WHOLE OF EQUITY, FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT IT IS ACCEPTED. IT IS THE MYSTICAL FOUNDATION OF ITS AUTHORITY; WHOEVER CARRIES IT BACK TO FIRST PRINCIPLES DESTROYS IT. NOTHING IS SO FAULTY AS THOSE LAWS WHICH CORRECT FAULTS. He who obeys them because they are just, obeys a justice which is imaginary, and not the essence of law; it is quite self-contained, it is law and nothing more. He who will examine its motive will find it so feeble and so trifling that if he be not accustomed to contemplate the wonders of human imagination, he will marvel that one century has gained for it so much pomp and reverence. The art of opposition and of revolution is to unsettle established customs, sounding them even to their source, to point out their want of authority and justice. We must, it is said, get back to the natural and fundamental laws of the State, which an unjust custom has abolished. It is a game certain to result in the loss of all; nothing will be just on the balance. Yet people readily lend their ear to such arguments. They shake off the yoke as soon as they recognise it; and the great profit by their ruin, and by that of these curious investigators of accepted customs. But from a contrary mistake men sometimes think they can justly do everything which is not without an example. THAT IS WHY THE WISEST OF LEGISLATORS SAID THAT IT WAS NECESSARY TO DECEIVE MEN FOR THEIR OWN GOOD; and another, a good politician, "Cum veritatem qua liberetur ignoret, expedit quod fallatur."
Nietzsche, "Daybreak"
Concept of morality of custom.— In comparison with the present mode of life of whole millennia of mankind we present-day men live in a very immoral age: the power of custom is astonishingly enfeebled and the moral sense so rarefied and lofty it may be described as having more or less evaporated. That is why the fundamental insights into the origin of morality are so difficult for us latecomers, and even when we have acquired them we find it impossible to enunciate them, because they sound so uncouth or because they seem to slander morality! This is, for example, already the case with the chief proposition: morality is nothing other (therefore no more!) than obedience to customs, of whatever kind they may be; customs, however, are the traditional way of behaving and evaluating. In things in which no tradition commands there is no morality; and the less life is determined by tradition, the smaller the circle of morality. The free human being is immoral because in all things he is determined to depend upon himself and not upon a tradition: in all the original conditions of mankind, "evil" signifies the same as "individual," "free," "capricious," "unusual," "unforeseen," "incalculable." Judged by the standard of these conditions, if an action is performed not because tradition commands it but for other motives (because of its usefulness to the individual, for example) even indeed for precisely the motives which once founded the tradition, it is called immoral and is felt to be so by him who performed it: for it was not performed in obedience to tradition. What is tradition? A higher authority which one obeys, not because it commands what is useful to us, but because it commands....
But then, in a Republic, men are NOT free. They are "bound" (re-legio) to act within the confines of "custom" such as may be written down in a Constitution. We call this state "liberty" and NOT "freedom".
@CI --- Someone has quite the fascination with homosexual sex acts.....
-----
And they will continue to try to make this a center piece of the Republican platform.
You think L'il Ricky Santorum is gone? Michele Bachmann?
They'll be back to make a shambles of the primary once more along with a complicit press. You need to find a way to marginalize these crazies.
the Classical Latin word religio (reverence, respect, awe; supernatural constraint, taboo; obligation)
derived from the Latin word religare (tie out of the way; bind fast; moor)
derived from the Late Latin word ligare (to bind; to tie; bind, tie, fasten)
derived from the Proto-Indo-European root *leig-
using the Latin prefix re-
It's crazy to not want to have gay sex... absolutely crazy.
FREE yourself.
btw - AIDS test will soon be FREE and mandatory insurance coverage...
but don't just believe me.
Thank you, "Freedom" lovers, everywhere.
So go get tested TODAY.
Instead of a wine and wafer communal offering, just donate a little blood to the church of secular empiricism.
btw - No offerings of recompense need be made. We'll simply reach into your pocket and TAKE whatever Uncle Sam deems sufficient.
After all, whatever the majority "believes" to be true should guide ALL ethical action.
As Madison remarked in his memorial and remonstrance...
We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man's right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance. True it is, that no other rule exists, by which any question which may divide a Society, can be ultimately determined, but the will of the majority; but it is also true that the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority.
Because Religion be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body. The latter are but the creatures and vicegerents of the former. Their jurisdiction is both derivative and limited: it is limited with regard to the co-ordinate departments, more necessarily is it limited with regard to the constituents. The preservation of a free Government requires not merely, that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be invariably maintained; but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great Barrier which defends the rights of the people. The Rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment, exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are Tyrants. The People who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them, and are slaves.
Because it is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of Citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The free men of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entagled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle. We revere this lesson too much soon to forget it. Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?
Oooops. My three pence just got contributed to the Church of Secularly Divine Buggery...
Lots of words from the classics, but let's stick to the constitution.
Where does it authorize the federal government to regulate the sex acts of others? Or even marriage for that matter?
What part of Madison didn't you understand, sf...
True it is, that no other rule exists, by which any question which may divide a Society, can be ultimately determined, but the will of the majority; but it is also true that the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority.
Trespass away!
Conservative today means Corporatist.
The Right-Wing fights for Corporations to enslave American workers and destroy the Middle Class.
SF - Playing devil's advocate, the argument you're likely to get is one that Z alluded to earlier. The framers simply couldn't envision a society with homosexuals wanting the same privileges of a free society as the majority.
The problem with that argument is that it's the same tact the left uses in arguing against the sanctity of the 2nd Amendment.
Who knew that the Founder's states in 1786 didn't recognize marriage or criminalize sodomy...
Conservative today means Corporatist.
Yeah, Obama HATES corporations. That's why he doesn't have any "bundlers" or "SuperPacs".
FJ, if you consider yourself a Conservative, why do you seem to yearn for the state to have the power to legislate what you can do with your own body, or with another consenting adult?
FJ: You dodge. Please answer my constitutional question. And you may want to glance at CI's latest comment first.
Gene: Your statement is ridiculous. Dems get half the corporate campaign cash, Obama took part ownership in GM and he gave millions in taxpayer funds to rich owners of 'green' companies.
Now, who's the corporatist.
Incorrect. Corporations overwhelmingly support Republicans.
And I stated Conservative because conservatives are carrying water for Corporations to oppress and subjugate Americans.
No Gene, your're wrong
10 Biggest Corporate Campaign Contributors
You're free to spout that crap over at your blog, but we deal in facts here.
Here's more:
Rupert Murdoch and Bain give more to Dems thatn Republicans:
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/205025-dems-receive-more-bain-dollars-than-gop
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/surprised-news-corp-donates-more-to-democrats-than-republicans/
It's a pay to play government, Gene, and your democrat heroes are just as big corporatists as the republicans.
Ha ha ha! Good One Silverfiddle!
Even your sources are crafted as lies of omission. Please note the date for your link 2010, conveniently ignoring the Hundreds of Millions Corporations funneled to their Corporatist Candidate Mitt Romney!
@ Hundreds of Millions Corporations funneled to their Corporatist Candidate Mitt Romney!
Right. And Obama raised $632,177,423 and outspent Romney by 200 million with nickels and dimes raised from poor people. Get a clue!
Take your time scrolling through it. It's an interesting list.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/bundlers.php
The problem with that argument is that it's the same tact the left uses in arguing against the sanctity of the 2nd Amendment.
-----
Nope.
The left argues from the fact that the sentence is a freaking train wreck.
Your belief that it grants every gun loon complete access to firearms is not even held by some on the fringe right.
Robert Bork believes it means you have the right to join a militia, nothing more.
In the argument over "well regulated" and "keep and bear" it will always be fluid since the framers were purposely vague. Right now you have a situation where money and majority tyranny control the issue.
viburnum , I don't know why anyone would argue that Obama isn't a bought and paid for corporate whore.
Difference is that he senses there are limits to how far he can push.
Romney's just thinking about buying that witch he married another dancing horse.
Ducky,
Nope.
The left also opines that the Founders could not have foreseen the evolution of the firearm, and theorize that they would have in no way wished for the state of affairs as exists today.
BTW...how do you figure that I hold the belief "that it grants every gun loon complete access to firearms is not even held by some on the fringe right."
Did you run out of a logical argument and feel the need to resort to ad hominems?
SF,
does the Constitution give the legislative branch power to make laws?
Did Patreus and Broadwell violate any covered by UCMJ. ( adultery)?
Are you saying that laws against adultery currently in force under UCMJ are extra- Constitutional?
Didn't the Constitution once sanction slavery ( 9th and 10th Amendments) before the 13th?
Oh wait, that can't be right.... Oooops.
I don't yearn for sexually restrictive laws if I don't have to PAY to treat the infirmaties that result from promiscuity, but when I'm forced to pay for other people's indiscretions, I tend to get pissed off and wish for the good old days when stupid behaviours WERE illegal, and their violators died as a result from their own stupidity instead of MY taxes and insurance costs going upto treat their Mental illnesses. Unfortunately, there's no cure for STUPID.
Primary dependence on empiricism implies too many limitations and too many negatives, because it vainly attempts to obviate the realm of spirituality.
Life is infinitely more than the sum of each individual human being's personal experience.
I'm much more of an intuitionist than an empiricist, myself, and proud of it. Most of the really great stuff that makes life worth living -- or even possible in many instances is incorporeal unquantifiable and illimitable -- i.e. spiritual not material. I'm talking about things like Truth, Love, Beauty, Integrity, Honor, Loyalty, Courage, Devotion, Creativity, Passion, Pity, Imagination, Innovation, Understanding, Ambition, Hope, Joy, Meaning, etc. in case you were wondering.
No lesser intellect than Albert Einstein declared unequivocally that "Imagination is more important than knowledge."
The mind of the dreamer
_____ is a secret storehouse
__________ wherein may dwell
_______________ all youthful fond illusion ––
The embryo of each utterance of hope ––
_____ each word of comfort ––
__________ and each song of joy.
The mind of the cynic
_____ is a well-known asylum
__________ wherein lies disenchantment ––
_______________ destruction and despair ––
The insidious, lisping voice of the serpent.
O, foolish Man! Why choose strife,
_____ when only what you choose to know
__________ has life?
~ FreeThinke (1962)
btw Why is bestiality still a crime? Did some sheep file a complaint? Or are they worried about some disease jumping the man-animal barrier like AIDS did?
OOOps, I guess sex with monkeys is a bad idea....
But do we need a LAW prevnting "unnatural" acts?
Nothing man can think of is " unnatural"... logic says.
WHOOPS! Forgot to add Mercy, Justice, Compassion, Tolerance, Generosity, Patience, Humor, Common Sense and Kindness to the list of vital intangibles that have great bearing on our lives.
What else have I left out?
Never mind the evil stuff of which we're all painfully aware. We emphasize all that too much already and always at the expense of the good.
But then the very concept of Good v. Evil, itself, is essentially spiritual -- definitely intangible, and nothing that can be captured and put in a jar or weighed and measured.
I can only repeat empiricism -- i.e. "rational objectivity" as many want to call it -- is far too restrictive in and of itself. It puts human intelligence in a mental moral and spiritual straitjacket
~ FT
Much as I hate to contradict an august intellect such as yourself, Thersites, I feel compelled to say that as a general rule fucking is far more rewarding -- and far less dangerous and destructive -- than fighting.
But, I must add, it doesn't beat Art and Music, et al.
Gene: One link is from 2010. So?
The other one is from 2012.
You leveled this ridiculously stupid charge:
"Corporations overwhelmingly support Republicans."
Now, try to prove it as we laugh in your face for being an ignorant red propaganda vector.
And your naive belief that Democrat politicians are free from corporate taint make you a poster boy for the Obama voter: Ignorant and easily led.
Thersites: You're slipping. Your arguments are specious.
The constitution gives the government the power to regulate the behavior of our armed forces. Join the military and you surrender many natural rights.
Bestiality? How we treat dumb animals says much about us as a society.
The 9th and 10th Amendment say nothing of slavery, ad the 13th repealed a historic wrong and fundamental violation of the natural rights of others.
As for the rest of your comments about unnatural acts, like the rest of what you have written, farragoes and grapeshot my friend. I argue from a basis of natural rights, the foundation upon which the constitution rests.
Back to the point of this post, the GOP took the South when it turned against civil rights for all Americans. As far as those particular southern voters were concerned, whatever party kept them ahead of Blacks and Hispanics, that was the choice for them. Hence the ridiculously racially-biased police state.
JMJ
JMJ: "Back to the point of this post, the GOP took the South when it turned against civil rights for all Americans."
Or, in a far more realistic explanation, when the Democrats made a hard left turn, proclaimed the then moderate wing of the party "neo-cons" and banished them, and started down the road to national bankruptcy. The country is full of people who in Reagan's words "... didn't leave the Democratic party, it left me."
Or, in a far more realistic explanation, when the Democrats made a hard left turn
---
The civil rights act was a hard left turn?
@"The civil rights act was a hard left turn?"
No it wasn't, and I'm sure you don't need to be reminded that it passed with solid Republican support when southern Democrats voted against it. Which would lead the thoughtful person to conclude that the explanation for the Dems losing the south must lay elsewhere.
There is no Sheldon Adelson and Crossroads GPS did not take in $500 Million Dollars alone.
continue living in your Corporatist Bubble.
Real Americans recognize that the Republican Party is wholly owned by the Rich and Corporations and the more you support Republicans the more elections you'll lose.
Natural rights... THAT is funny. The only "natural" rights we have were enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, NOT the Constitution. Madison decribes those, too, in his Memorial and Remonstrance.
And ALL arguments are both cuckold and whore, sayeth Thersites.
He who tastes, knows. He who tastes not, knows not. - Sufi parable.
So much for "logic".
Of course, those rights were inalienable. And many today would say, that in the absence of a Creator, there are no such inalienable (natural) rights. Science has conquered Nature, and Zeus no longer sits on the throne of Necessity.
Theresites: I do not argue with the wisdom you bring to the argument. We agree on much, but this is essentially a constitutional argument, and the constitution does not enumerate our natural rights, it is designed to keep the federal government from trampling them.
Prometheus has stolen fire from the gods in a stalk of fennel. :)
LOL! If not enumerated, then the Constitution preserves and protects nothing.
"...that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--..."
I'd say that "among these" count's as honorable mention, or perhaps even bestows pride of place, but hardly counts as either 'only' or 'enumerated'
@ Gene: Real Americans recognize that the Republican Party...
Bla bla bla...
HA HA! Reduced to a bandwagon fallacy. I knew you had no data to back up your ridiculous claims. MSLSD let you down again. You may want to turn off the TV, put down the hopium hookah and do some serious research.
You can't tie Laputa to anything but a FIXED tower.
"LOL! If not enumerated, then the Constitution preserves and protects nothing."
Now I understand your advocacy of a theocracy. At least, as always, your argument is logically coherent.
Abortion... so much for "life".
Theocracy? Nope. A choice from amongst 50 different and disparate ways of living. Some great goods cannot live together... except under a more perfect union. Values can be and typically ARE incommensurable. Ala egalite, fraternite, liberte.
Rousseau, "Emile"
The right to travel the world,, and settle in the place most commensurate with one's values.
NOT to change the values of the place in which I reside to some ideal come to me recently.
Plato, "Laws"
The next thing to be noted is, that the city should be placed as nearly as possible in the centre of the country; we should choose a place which possesses what is suitable for a city, and this may easily be imagined and described. Then we will divide the city into twelve portions, first founding temples to Hestia, to Zeus and to Athene, in a spot which we will call the Acropolis, and surround with a circular wall, making the division of the entire city and country radiate from this point. The twelve portions shall be equalized by the provision that those which are of good land shall be smaller, while those of inferior quality shall be larger. The number of the lots shall be 5040, and each of them shall be divided into two, and every allotment shall be composed of two such sections; one of land near the city, the other of land which is at a distance (compare Arist. Pol.). This arrangement shall be carried out in the following manner: The section which is near the city shall be added to that which is on the borders, and form one lot, and the portion which is next nearest shall be added to the portion which is next farthest; and so of the rest. Moreover, in the two sections of the lots the same principle of equalization of the soil ought to be maintained; the badness and goodness shall be compensated by more and less. And the legislator shall divide the citizens into twelve parts, and arrange the rest of their property, as far as possible, so as to form twelve equal parts; and there shall be a registration of all. After this they shall assign twelve lots to twelve Gods, and call them by their names, and dedicate to each God their several portions, and call the tribes after them. And they shall distribute the twelve divisions of the city in the same way in which they divided the country; and every man shall have two habitations, one in the centre of the country, and the other at the extremity. Enough of the manner of settlement.
Fifty beats twelve. Viva la difference!
Ala egalite, fraternite, liberte
So move to fucking France
Of which deme of Attica do you hail?
Swiss canton? American state.
William Tell, we barely knew ye... until you got old.
So move to fucking France
Would it be so wrong if one American state implemented the laws and customs of France? Or is THAT a thought too horrible and EXTREME to contemplate?
Could a state which sanctioned sodomy coexist with a papal one?
So much for e pluribus unum and tolerance for a diversity of thought.
So much for the Articles of Confederation. A stronger Constitution is needed... so much stronger that Abe Lincoln eventually could impose a secular theocracy and dissolve the states.
The tyrants heel is on thy shore, Maryland my Maryland.
The United States losses the "plural" form and becomes the United State (singular) becomes the untied state, for all values ultimately oppose each other. As temperance opposes courage. As justice opposes wisdom... for there can only be ONE way of defining a "good life" and living well.... the Constitutional way...
Ala egalite, fraternite, liberte
So move to fucking France
-------
Second choice after Florence although Krakow is surprisingly desirable.
The point is, if I want sodomy and universal health care, I need to move to Massachusetts, and if I don't, move to Texas... NOT impose Massachusetts values EVERWHERE.
Maryland was founded as a Catholic colony... Puritans be DAMNED!
@What part of Madison didn't you understand...
The part that said "I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpations; but, on a candid examination of history, we shall find that turbulence, violence, and abuse of power, by the majority trampling on the rights of the minority, have produced factions and commotions, which, in republics, have, more frequently than any other cause, produced despotism."
The part that said “And I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt. will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.”
And the part that said "What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people."
And finally, the part that said "During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."
The man that wrote Federalist #10 is no advocate of populist democracy.
Cheers!
"...NOT impose Massachusetts values EVERWHERE."
Those changes will take root in other states, and eventually the country, whether you like it or not.
"For the times, they are a-changin'."
@So much for e pluribus unum and tolerance for a diversity of thought
You have an odd concept of tolerance and diversity. Who is more tolerant of a diversity of thought? One who imposes his religious beliefs on others? Or one who lives by his own beliefs and lets others live by theirs.
I have great tolerance... don't want an abortion? Don't get one. Don't want to bugger Thersites (come on... you know he wants it, he's obsessed with it)... don't.
Akins religious beliefs don't put me off, his stupidity does.
I'm not the source of the problem... I am simply pointing it out, the only votes that get fundamentalists get are fundamentalist. Sure, the good people of Missouri's 2nd Congressional District want that... that's fine with me, it doesn't play on the national stage, and it doesn't apparently play all that well in MO #2 either.
But hey... keep banging your head on that wall if your want.
I'm a conservative libertarian and I won't vote for people like Akin, Mourdock, McMahon, Smith, or Koster.
But hey! If you want to party like it's 1999 BC, have at it.
Sad, isn't it... we seem to be in agreement with government being determined at the lowest level, with the state NOT mandating the whole pay for the poor choices of the few...
Yet what do we talk about? Gay Marriage and Sodomy...
We're doomed! DOOMED I TELL YOU!
"BALLS!," said the Queen.
"If I had 'em. I'd be KING."
The King laughed, because he had two.
The Queen cried, because she wanted two.
Tra la la! Tra la la! Tra la la!
Why do we feast in buttburgers, when there's lobster, shrimp, crabmeat and filet mignon?
As Auntie Mame said, Life's a banquet, and most poor sons of bitches just sit around starving to death."
What fools them mortals is!
@viburnum -- Which would lead the thoughtful person to conclude that the explanation for the Dems losing the south must lay elsewhere.
------
No, the Dixiecrats left due to civil rights legislation and helped form the contemporary Republican party.
We have two parties in America:
Fringe right --- Republican
Center right --- Democrat
Where is this utopia where men live by their own beliefs and don't impose their values upon others?
What would they need laws and governments for?
Who knew that living in a heaven upon the earth was an actual option for mankind...
Wow. Anarchists have got nothing on you libertarians...
Order simply springs from chaos. Forces are not required. Gravity requires no laws.
Sign me up.
As Voltaire remarked to Rouuseau...
"I have received your new book against the human race, and thank you for it. Never was such a cleverness used in the design of making us all stupid. One longs, in reading your book, to walk on all fours. But as I have lost that habit for more than sixty years, I feel unhappily the impossibility of resuming it. Nor can I embark in search of the savages of Canada, because the maladies to which I am condemned render a European surgeon necessary to me; because war is going on in those regions; and because the example of our actions has made the savages nearly as bad as ourselves."
@ FreeThinke:
The mind of the cynic
_____ is a well-known asylum
__________ wherein lies disenchantment ––
_______________ destruction and despair ––
The insidious, lisping voice of the serpent.
You were wise beyond your years. Talk of hissing serpents makes me want to grab the garden hoe...
Man is not a herd animal. He is a horde animal. A distinction with a significant difference. Especially for all you "beta" males. ;)
Ducky: "...the Dixiecrats left due to civil rights legislation and helped form the contemporary Republican party."
And joined the party that assured it's passage? Too simplistic, but I suppose convenient from your point of view, since it avoids having to acknowledge that the Dem's shift left drove away moderate voters in '72 and went on to expel the neo-cons from the party, leaving them no where else to go.
Would those "beta males" be quoting greeks and obsessed with sodomy?
Honestly, you're little more than a word farmer cutting and pasting vast swaths of text, here, you're out of your league.
Cut Less, Read More, Think!
"He wrapped himself in quotations- as a beggar would enfold himself in the purple of Emperors."
Ducky, remind me where anybody said Republicans want a theocracy?
And remind us how military action never helps?
How's Arab Spring working out for you?
You have a lot of nerve.
Constitutional Ins:...When did anybody even call us a Christian nation lately? Other than Obama saying we aren't? Who's EVER suggested "our way or the highway?"
No...we say "our way, your way, who cares? just quit slamming our way and welcoming the ways of those who want Americans praising allah."
I don't think that's too much to ask.
How's Arab Spring working out for you?
---------
How is it working out for me?
Why the bleep is that a concern? How is it working out for the people of the region?
There may be two libertarians somewhere who agree with one another, but I am not one of them.
--- Farmer John
We are not the Christian Reform Party! If we attempt to be, we will continue to get our ass handed to us by the electorate.
I see Finntann is still meticulously avoiding the appearance of possessing intellect.
When did "we" EVER attempt to be the "Christian Reform Party?" "We" (or rather, "YOU") ran the founding father of gay marriage and $50 co-pay taxpayer funded abortions for President. To add insult to injury and farce to fallacy, "YOU" called this homosexualist PROGRESSIVE a "conservative" and tried to sell it to conservatives that know better.
AND STILL LOST!
By all accounts, Romney might have had a plausible shot at winning the election had he appealed to social conservatives (or had the political record of a candidate capable of doing so). They largely stayed home or voted third party when the GOP pulled their "can't beat the left so join them" candidate out of Massachusetts.
No, Finntann. Social conservatives didn't lose your widdle election for you. People were just content with Obama moderating Romney's far left ideas.
Romney's far left ideas?
Repeal the military's "don't ask don't tell" policy and allow homosexuals to openly serve in America - Romney was championing this as early as 1994
Allow gay couples to "marry" - Romney (personally, with a power given the Governor by the Massachusetts constitution) granted over 189 marriage licenses to gay couples
Close down coal plants in the name of "global warming" - Romney shut down the Salem Harbor Power Station for precisely that
Cap and trade - Romney (unconstitutionally) proposed that Massachussetts enter into an energy confederation with its own minted currency with the state of New York based on capping emissions and trading "carbon credits"
Taxpayer funded abortions - Romney put Planned Parenthood on a commission in Massachusetts to offer $50 co-pay abortions under his Romneycare mandate
Socialized medicine - Obamacare is Romneycare with lower tax penalties
When America was given the choice between Obama and Obama with a Republican logo, they chose Obama.
Want to tackle the social conservatives head on, Finntann?
Repeal the marriage and child tax credits for being "unfair" to people who can't marry or have kids (i.e. gay people). Then raise everyone's taxes.
God forbid you ever realize tax policy is social engineering writ large.
Keep drooling that "social conservatism" begins and ends with religious concerns. Idiot.
Z - "No...we say "our way, your way, who cares? just quit slamming our way and welcoming the ways of those who want Americans praising allah."
I don't think that's too much to ask."
It wouldn't be too much to ask if social conservatives used that rule in the course of politics and legislation. Instead, we get quite the opposite from the fundamentalist right and their array of surrogates.
Beamish: Do you have data showing social conservatives stayed home?
The data I saw didn't support that. It looked like rust belt underemployed, etc, not religiously-motivated voters.
How many millions agree economically with the GOP but can't pull the lever because of the sanctimonious tone and condemnatory preachings?
The GOP should be a comfortable home for Christians, but out politicians need to learn how to discuss it intelligently or get their dumb asses off the stage.
And yes, most of us agree with your long, plaintive whine about Romney. He wasn't the ideal candidate.
Thersites, You're a smart guy, why not say what you mean? I've been trying to wade through your self satisfied peacocking. You're just not accessible to semi-literates like me. Just an observation.
I get that you think buggery is icky. Maybe it's the prevailing conservative mindset, that the ladies are an afterthought, but where do you stand on bumping donuts?
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
Oh yeah. Keep both hands on the keyboard.
This seems to be the norm with arguments from that position. A distinct focus on only one gender and only one sex act....along with the premise that a biological sexual orientation [where it regards homosexuals] comprises only the sex act....a premise not extended to heterosexuals.
Ducky,
You seem to have a hard time distinguishing the difference between a "conservative" and a "libertarian". Libertarians are to the right what anarchists are to the Left. Children.
FT,
I am as out of your league as a Major League pitcher is out of the Little League. For unlike yourself, I CAN quote sources.
Craig,
Bump away. Just don't expect a tax break or child-care credit for future donut purchases.
Hint: Procreative acts do not "equal" non-procreative acts, no matter how much LOVE may be expressed by their consumation. They tend to lead to far different "material" results.
AIDS for some. Pregnancies for others.
My it was windy over here yesterday, wasn't it?
A veritable hurricane, if you ask me.
Beamish... How did your principles do this past election?
You do understand (apparently not) that what would be an electable Republican candidate in Missouri would not be an electable candidate in Massachusetts, and vice versa.
If you want to make homosexuality, sodomy, gay marriage, and abortion the cornerstones of your platform, you will not be a national party for very much longer.'
The #1 litmus test for a candidate is are they electable? Because if they are not, everything else is utterly irrelevant.
So go on... pat yourself on the back for running 'good' conservatives like Akin, Mourdock, McMahon, Smith, and Koster while the Democrats pat themselves on the back for running Wagner, Donnelly, Murphy, Casey, and DelBene.
So, how are the 1950's these days?
FJ... so explain to me how Plato is a relevant source for this discussion?
Anybody can quote:
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read. - Marx (Groucho that is)
It doesn't make it pertinent, but hey! Have fun.
@ Repeal the marriage and child tax credits for being "unfair" to people who can't marry or have kids (i.e. gay people).
AMEN
Anyone [may] quote, but few do it aptly, as FJ usually does.
Those too arrogant and lazy-minded to bother to read, study and think a bit are unlikely ever to comprehend the relevance of quoted material.
Also, the inability to draw parallels, understand oblique references and relish the use of figurative or symbolic language may be an indication of a deficient IQ.
Beamish... How did your principles do this past election?
Well enough to spare America from four years of Mitt Romney, I'd say.
You do understand (apparently not) that what would be an electable Republican candidate in Missouri would not be an electable candidate in Massachusetts, and vice versa.
Massachusetts is a left-liberal college town-dominated county pretending to be a state.
Be that as it may, a "Massachusetts Republican" isn't electable ANYWHERE outside Massachusetts, and barely is even electable there.
If you want to make homosexuality, sodomy, gay marriage, and abortion the cornerstones of your platform, you will not be a national party for very much longer.
The problem with your slipshod caricature is those AREN'T the cornerstones of the Republican platform and never were. No one is trying to make them that either.
I invite you to attempt a new tactic: put some thought into your remarks. The religious subset of social conservatives may make for an easy scapegoat for why your preferred gay marriage advocate lost his bid for the Presidency, but their arguments have secular analogues and quite a bit of defensible ground for those intellectually equipped to stand and build upon it. You can join Obama in dismissing folk who "cling to guns and religion" in your fantasy makeover of the Republican Party, or you can just go be a far left Democrat already. People who "cling to guns and religion" do so for quite a tapestry of reasons, and I can assure you the overwhelming majority of them are not pining for a theocracy.
The #1 litmus test for a candidate is are they electable? Because if they are not, everything else is utterly irrelevant.
Mitt Romney was so unelectable that the Teabaglickin Party establishment had to violate its own primary delegate allocation rules to secure him "his" nomination, all the while courting ridiculousness by labelling the far-left progressive Romney a "conservative" and actual conservatives (like Newt Gingrich) as "progressives." Your breathless race to absurdity didn't win Romney the White House. You really think more of the same backward approach and denial of reality is going to pantomime up a winning message in 2014? 2016?
Newt Gingrich was one of the chief architects of Reagan's 1980 and 1984 election platforms and THE architect of the 1994 sweep of Republicans into control of the Senate and the House. Yeah, he sat on a couch in a TV commercial with Nancy Pelosi for 30 seconds, but he didn't close a coal plant down FOREVER.
But, Newt Gingrich "wasn't electable" because he's been divorced twice and married thrice and made Republicans balance the budget in 20 minutes instead of 20 years.
Who's the prude?
Anyone [may] quote, but few do it aptly, as FJ usually does.
Those too arrogant and lazy-minded to bother to read, study and think a bit are unlikely ever to comprehend the relevance of quoted material.
Also, the inability to draw parallels, understand oblique references and relish the use of figurative or symbolic language may be an indication of a deficient IQ.
Well said, FreeThinke. And if I may translate for the small-minded...
Finntann, FT just caled you out on your neon obvious stupidity.
Beamish: Do you have data showing social conservatives stayed home?
The data I saw didn't support that. It looked like rust belt underemployed, etc, not religiously-motivated voters.
You make my point for me, Silverfiddle. Let's imagine your resident leftard Finntann got his fantasy GOP party up and running full steam, and instead of 2012's "conservatives throw away your qualms and principles and vote for Romney anyway" we get a 2016 "conservatives, fuck off." Those generally reliably Republican social conservative states of Texas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Kentucky, West Virginia, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, and Tennessee all decide the GOP no longer represents their views. That's 190 of the coveted 270 Electoral College vote threshold Finntann just pissed away so the big mean gay people won't call him a Jesus freak, or worse.
How many millions agree economically with the GOP but can't pull the lever because of the sanctimonious tone and condemnatory preachings?
Now look at the vote totals in those states mentioned above. Did Romney do better, or worse than McCain in 2008 there?
Hint: Worse.
Yeah, throwing social conservatives under the bus is smart, huh?
Beamish: I asked you for your data, and of course, you brought none. Southern States voted at the 2008 levels, so try again, Junior.
but their arguments have secular analogues and quite a bit of defensible ground for those intellectually equipped to stand and build upon it.
Well said. Now if there were just someone in the GOP intellectually equipped to build upon it...
You're not, and your fat little blowhard hero couldn't even make it out of the primaries.
FreeThinke: You and Beamish should go get a room. Maybe Farmer could read poetry to you as you lovingly stroke one another's superiority complexes.
You and Beamish should go get a room. Maybe Farmer could read poetry to you as you lovingly stroke one another's superiority complexes.
Translation: Stop picking on Silverfiddle's gay lover Finntann or he'll close comments down.
FJ... so explain to me how Plato is a relevant source for this discussion?
Hmmm, let's see....
. And the legislator shall divide the citizens into twelve parts, and arrange the rest of their property, as far as possible, so as to form twelve equal parts; and there shall be a registration of all. After this they shall assign twelve lots to twelve Gods, and call them by their names, and dedicate to each God their several portions, and call the tribes after them.
You can't see 12 states in this, each with their own laws (gods) to follow?
Wow. In Athens, there were originally only 10 "demes". Socrates was from Alopeke.
Each citizen worshipped Hestia, his household god and his "tribes" gods.
Bring back the Achean League!
Romanes Eunt Dominus!
Joe:
I think the issue is that while FJ provides copious doses of wisdom from the classics (which I enjoy), those of us less literate sometimes get lost in the denseness of it all.
It is sometimes hard to see where he is coming down on an issue. Kind of like reading Soren Kierkegaard without a commentary guide written by a professor who has studied him.
Joe: don't forget that while FJ is capable of insight, he is also often inclined to waste your time. It is reasonable to dismiss him as a troll.
Jez,
And since "Joe Conservative" *IS* "FJ," do you think you could get the "two" to argue with each other?
LOL!!!
Beamish: It would make Plato's dialogues look like children's theater.
I may have meant Craig (go easy, I'm on opiates at the mo). But why is it our job to keep up with FJ's fragmented personae? Use onne name, please.
Bite me, jez.
I suppose FJ feels having a single ID would disenfranchise him. ;)
Post a Comment