Social Conservatives and Corporatists.

[Mr. Shaman]

Demonize? I think I summed both schools up very nicely in a nutshell.

I see lots of complaining..I don't see one post that pointing to specifics and saying "We don't do that.."

Because, it is a simple troll thread and not worthy of any rational response, which will be ignored by you anyway.

I generally respond to reponses..and generally they are repectful to the poster..if somewhat angry about the post. Unless of course..the post is personally insulting.

I am not trolling.

I am trying to help conservatives understand how Americans, like myself, view them.

There is nothing wrong with opinions that are different. However, radical opinions, left or right, should be challenged.

And in my 50 years on this earth...since the 60s..I have never seen anything like this.

I'd like to know why "conservatives" (fascists, in Conservative-clothing) feel some heavy-duty need to move backwards (politically).

"....they made positive changes in America."

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Again..I posted "not in the way you think". The limits on Federal power come in the form of things they can't do...

And the list of things the federal government can't do, according to the tenth amendment and pretty much everything written about the constitution at the time of it's formation, is infinite, and defined by omission, i.e. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution".

Yep.

Do yourself a favor and read it. The Federal government has very board enumerated powers. It's that way for a reason.

Are you saying thier powers are made of wood, or that the limits on them are not worth the paper they are written on?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Your kidding right?

Citizens United?

All Citizens United did was tell the government they could not choose to force people to incorporate and then use that law to prohibit them from talking about issues. I do not understand why anyone who claims to be moderate would have a problem with it. The interesting thing is that the FEC already exempted some corporations from having to obey the rules before the court forced them to let everyone have an even playing field. Maybe that is the problem, you actually prefer some corporations to have more political power.

What Citizen's United did was remove a protection against an abuse of the system. Corporations are now free to funnel money to PACS as they please without fear of breaking any laws. And it's astounding that anyone interested in a government not run by corporations doesn't see that.

What abuse was prevented by preventing Citizens United from airing Hillary the Movie in the 60 days before the primary? You really should stop listening to talking points and do a little research.

Also, can you point to any federal election that was unduly influenced by corporate spending?

 

[Sallow]

Yeah I think that about sums up the GOP of today... the unholy alliance of relatively cluelss social reactionaries and crypto-fascist corporatists.

As opposed to the DNC which is the unholy alliance of relatively clueless social radicals and even more deeply crypto crypto-fascists.

Either way, the American Dream is screwed

Well yes and no.

It really depends on the more moderate elements in this country. One of the reasons we are getting the type of people we are getting as politicians..is that a vast number of level headed people have simply given up.

They don't vote. And they think they are making some sort of statement.

I think a number of people have "given up" going the political moute because we understand that playing by the rules of a game that is RIGGED is largely a waste of our precious time.

I happen to be one of those people, Sallow.

I used to sit on the board of this states largest public action group. We had 30,000 dues payingemembers in a state of about 1 million people.

But even sitting on the board, I realized that my ability to change things VIA THE SYSTEM was largely illusionary.

Hence I withdrew from public life and focus on creating a revolution through good works, instead of politics.
I often wonder if I made a mistake, if I ought to have continued in the game of politics.

But I KNOW that what I do now has merit, and I know that what I did them often had consquences that left me less than satisfied with the return I got for my efforts.

I guess in my heart of hearts, the only organization I can fully trust is the one that I control.

I am reasonably sure that I might have made a career in politics, but I also know there was no way I could have made it without getting in bed with what I think is the devil of compromise.

I have no trouble with this..so long as no one gets hurt.

In any case..if any one can come up with a better way of governance then the one we currently have.

I am all ears.

 

[Sallow]

All Citizens United did was tell the government they could not choose to force people to incorporate and then use that law to prohibit them from talking about issues. I do not understand why anyone who claims to be moderate would have a problem with it. The interesting thing is that the FEC already exempted some corporations from having to obey the rules before the court forced them to let everyone have an even playing field. Maybe that is the problem, you actually prefer some corporations to have more political power.

What Citizen's United did was remove a protection against an abuse of the system. Corporations are now free to funnel money to PACS as they please without fear of breaking any laws. And it's astounding that anyone interested in a government not run by corporations doesn't see that.

What abuse was prevented by preventing Citizens United from airing Hillary the Movie in the 60 days before the primary? You really should stop listening to talking points and do a little research.

Also, can you point to any federal election that was unduly influenced by corporate spending?

Bush's 2 terms and the congressional midterms of 2010.

 

[Sallow]

And the list of things the federal government can't do, according to the tenth amendment and pretty much everything written about the constitution at the time of it's formation, is infinite, and defined by omission, i.e. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution".

Yep.

Do yourself a favor and read it. The Federal government has very board enumerated powers. It's that way for a reason.

Are you saying thier powers are made of wood, or that the limits on them are not worth the paper they are written on?

Read the post.

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

I can't think of any other language in the whole document that gives that much power to any body of government.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Excellent OP. I have to review carefully and add it my bookmarks that easily summarize conservative / republican / libertarian thought today. But you have to realize people who live in bubbles only see the bubble, argument, even when excellent does not convince someone who only sees in a certain manner. But what is frightening given America today is while our infrastructure collapses, inequality grows, and energy dependence hurts all, the conservatives cling to an imaginary past, and imaginary ideal, that never was, but since the last election that imaginary idea was lost, and only a return to ? will return us to nirvana. Humans are odd creatures.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...es-of-midcans-insights-into-contemporary.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/50859-conservative-beliefs.html

You are striving very hard to not only be an arrogant asshole, but pompous as well. What gives you any insight into anyone's beliefs when you cannot even articulate your own beliefs? You have never had a discussion with me, or anyone else I have seen, where you did not resort to quoting someone else rather than actually articulate a cogent defense of any position you espouse. The thing I find most amazing is that your threads are not relegates to conspiracy theories sub forum, you exhibit all the classic signs of a conspiracy nut, or a pundit. You are no different than Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, except they actually know they are crazy, and have the money to prove it.

Punditry is a whole industry built on confirmation bias. Rush Limbaugh and Keith Olbermann, Glenn Beck and Arianna Huffington, Rachel Maddow and Ann Coulter – these people provide fuel for beliefs, they pre-filter the world to match existing world-views.
If their filter is like your filter, you love them. If it isn’t, you hate them.
Whether or not pundits are telling the truth, or vetting their opinions, or thoroughly researching their topics is all beside the point. You watch them not for information, but for confirmation.

Confirmation Bias « You Are Not So Smart

I only hope that I can keep others from falling into your warped world where one side is always right, and the other is always wrong, and anyone who disagrees with you is on the side that is always wrong.

Tell me something, have you ever publicly admitted you were wrong? Privately? Are you to self serving to even recognize when someone is being sarcastic?

 

[dblack]

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

I can't think of any other language in the whole document that gives that much power to any body of government.

Ah, yes. Hamilton's exploit is classic. And I'm always so tempted to show just how idiotic the 'implied general power' interpretation really is, but let's not and say we did, eh? Frankly, the levels of delusion necessary to defend it are simply too embarrassing to wade through yet again.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What Citizen's United did was remove a protection against an abuse of the system. Corporations are now free to funnel money to PACS as they please without fear of breaking any laws. And it's astounding that anyone interested in a government not run by corporations doesn't see that.

What abuse was prevented by preventing Citizens United from airing Hillary the Movie in the 60 days before the primary? You really should stop listening to talking points and do a little research.

Also, can you point to any federal election that was unduly influenced by corporate spending?

Bush's 2 terms and the congressional midterms of 2010.

Funny thing, Bush signed the law that you say would have prevented him from being elected. How do you explain the fact that he got reelected?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yep.

Do yourself a favor and read it. The Federal government has very board enumerated powers. It's that way for a reason.

Are you saying thier powers are made of wood, or that the limits on them are not worth the paper they are written on?

Read the post.

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

I can't think of any other language in the whole document that gives that much power to any body of government.

Only if you neglect to read the rest of the sentence.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

That might actually be your problem here, you read so far and then stop because you got to the part you like. The part of the sentence you glossed over explains why, when Congress passed an income tax, it was ruled unconstitutional.

Please, don't let actual history and the English language get in the way of your beliefs though, no one else does. Why think for yourself when others can think for you?

 

[George Costanza]

Punditry is a whole industry built on confirmation bias. Rush Limbaugh and Keith Olbermann, Glenn Beck and Arianna Huffington, Rachel Maddow and Ann Coulter – these people provide fuel for beliefs, they pre-filter the world to match existing world-views. If their filter is like your filter, you love them. If it isn’t, you hate them. Whether or not pundits are telling the truth, or vetting their opinions, or thoroughly researching their topics is all beside the point. You watch them not for information, but for confirmation.

Confirmation Bias « You Are Not So Smart

I only hope that I can keep others from falling into your warped world where one side is always right, and the other is always wrong, and anyone who disagrees with you is on the side that is always wrong.

Tell me something, have you ever publicly admitted you were wrong? Privately? Are you to self serving to even recognize when someone is being sarcastic?

I agree with the quoted portion of the article. I don't buy books by any of the right wing pundits. I have half a dozen written by "our people." One of them I have read twice.

Is this a good thing? Hell no. I know that I should read as much as I can from the other side. So why don't I? I'm not sure it is just that I like to hear what I already believe. I think it's more that I know in advance that much of what comes at me from the conservative side is - well, let's just say I don't believe it. I know, I know - maybe if I read it, I might change some of my views.

I can't ever imagine changing my views on torture, the Patriot Act, abortion, or any number of the major issues we love to kick around here. It is not a matter of rational argument. Rather, it is a matter of fundamental values, the way I was educated and raised, etc. That is not to say that I am right an "they" are wrong. There are two sides to every issue. I recognize that those who oppose my views are equally committed to theirs - based largely on the same thing I was talking about previously, i.e. fundamental values.

Let's face it. If your version of patriotism involves torturing suspected terrorists, have at it. I respect your motivation and your commitment to that, or any other, subjective issues such as that. And let's face it - virtually all of this stuff involves a subjective decision.

You raise a hell of an issue here. More later. Right now, my wife wants me to do stuff. Shit!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Punditry is a whole industry built on confirmation bias. Rush Limbaugh and Keith Olbermann, Glenn Beck and Arianna Huffington, Rachel Maddow and Ann Coulter – these people provide fuel for beliefs, they pre-filter the world to match existing world-views. If their filter is like your filter, you love them. If it isn’t, you hate them. Whether or not pundits are telling the truth, or vetting their opinions, or thoroughly researching their topics is all beside the point. You watch them not for information, but for confirmation.

Confirmation Bias « You Are Not So Smart

I only hope that I can keep others from falling into your warped world where one side is always right, and the other is always wrong, and anyone who disagrees with you is on the side that is always wrong.

Tell me something, have you ever publicly admitted you were wrong? Privately? Are you to self serving to even recognize when someone is being sarcastic?

I agree with the quoted portion of the article. I don't buy books by any of the right wing pundits. I have half a dozen written by "our people." One of them I have read twice.

Is this a good thing? Hell no. I know that I should read as much as I can from the other side. So why don't I? I'm not sure it is just that I like to hear what I already believe. I think it's more that I know in advance that much of what comes at me from the conservative side is - well, let's just say I don't believe it. I know, I know - maybe if I read it, I might change some of my views.

I can't ever imagine changing my views on torture, the Patriot Act, abortion, or any number of the major issues we love to kick around here. It is not a matter of rational argument. Rather, it is a matter of fundamental values, the way I was educated and raised, etc. That is not to say that I am right an "they" are wrong. There are two sides to every issue. I recognize that those who oppose my views are equally committed to theirs - based largely on the same thing I was talking about previously, i.e. fundamental values.

Let's face it. If your version of patriotism involves torturing suspected terrorists, have at it. I respect your motivation and your commitment to that, or any other, subjective issues such as that. And let's face it - virtually all of this stuff involves a subjective decision.

You raise a hell of an issue here. More later. Right now, my wife wants me to do stuff. Shit!

Kudos for seeing that you are biased.

I will be honest, I have to remind myself every day that I fall into the same trap. It is impossible to read everything the people I disagree with say, but I do try, and have found myself occasionally learning from the experience and changing my mind. One of the issues that I was particularly wrong about was gay marriage. I let my personal bias against some of the more radical activists influence my position on the whole issue.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

And the list of things the federal government can't do, according to the tenth amendment and pretty much everything written about the constitution at the time of it's formation, is infinite, and defined by omission, i.e. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution".

Are you saying thier powers are made of wood, or that the limits on them are not worth the paper they are written on?

And as already addressed, the Supreme Court has established over 200 years of case law explaining what Congress may do and what it may not, starting with McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819), where the Court ruled ‘[t]he States have no power, by taxation or otherwise, to impede or in any manner control any of the constitutional means employed by the U.S. government to execute its powers under the Constitution.’

This was reaffirmed in United States v. Darby Lumber Co., 312 U.S. 100 (1941), where the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 was upheld as Constitutional pursuant to the Commerce Clause:

Our conclusion is unaffected by the Tenth Amendment. which provides:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the [p124] States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment, or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers.

The Tenth Amendment therefore never authorized states to ignore Federal statues, enact laws which in of themselves violated the Federal Constitution, or otherwise violate the civil rights of their citizens.

And before you crow about it, yes, the Supreme Court agrees with you. They are wrong as well.

It is not a matter of ‘crowing’ about anything – it’s a matter of libertarians’ and others on the extreme right providing justification for their position in the context of the rule of law.

Historically it has been the states and local jurisdictions that have violated the civil rights of Americans, not the Federal government. For 57 years the Supreme Court has addressed various cases of civil rights violations by the states and other jurisdictions from Brown v Board of Education in 1954 to Lawrence v Texas in 2003. These and other cases have addressed violations including but not limited to privacy rights, equal protection rights, and due process rights.

It’s troubling and inconsistent on the part of libertarians to be overly concerned about the government excess in fiscal matters yet unconcerned with regard to government excess in civil liberties issues.

Please, don't let actual history and the English language get in the way of your beliefs though, no one else does. Why think for yourself when others can think for you?

It’s also not a matter of ‘thinking for yourself,’ rather, it’s an understanding of the Constitution in the context of the rule of law, of understanding the role of the Supreme Court to interpret the meaning of the Founding Document authorized by the rule of law, and that the original intent of the Framers was diverse and mutable at the time, never realizing consensus.

 

[dblack]

And as already addressed, the Supreme Court has established ...

Well, as I've stated and you've ignored, I believe the Supreme Court was wrong on this. Appeals to authority don't resolve whether said authority is right.

Historically it has been the states and local jurisdictions that have violated the civil rights of Americans, not the Federal government...

Both states and the federal government are guilty of expanding government power beyond the limits set by the Constitution and the Supreme Court has largely ignored both. But in reality, it's voters who have failed to uphold the values of limited government. In the end, quibbling over the intent and meaning of the original text of the constitution is meaningless if voters don't care. If most people want an intrusive, caretaker government, that's what we'll get. It's up the rest of us to figure out how to fight back.

It’s troubling and inconsistent on the part of libertarians to be overly concerned about the government excess in fiscal matters yet unconcerned with regard to government excess in civil liberties issues.

Now you're simply fantasizing. Libertarians are far more adamant defenders of our liberties than any other political party.

 

[Antiderivative]

RW hacks love corporatism and the state.

Roderick Long explains it nicely here: Corporations versus the Market; or, Whip Conflation Now | Roderick Long | Cato Unbound

 

[Sallow]

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

I can't think of any other language in the whole document that gives that much power to any body of government.

Ah, yes. Hamilton's exploit is classic. And I'm always so tempted to show just how idiotic the 'implied general power' interpretation really is, but let's not and say we did, eh? Frankly, the levels of delusion necessary to defend it are simply too embarrassing to wade through yet again.

Well the Whiskey Rebellion and the Civil War should have convinced the "State Rights" types that "State Rights" only go so far.

But go on chief. Bray ad nauseum about Federal Limits. The whole argument was lost essentially when we stopped relying on a militia based military and moved to a professional one.

 

[Sallow]

Are you saying thier powers are made of wood, or that the limits on them are not worth the paper they are written on?

Read the post.

I can't think of any other language in the whole document that gives that much power to any body of government.

Only if you neglect to read the rest of the sentence.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

That might actually be your problem here, you read so far and then stop because you got to the part you like. The part of the sentence you glossed over explains why, when Congress passed an income tax, it was ruled unconstitutional.

Please, don't let actual history and the English language get in the way of your beliefs though, no one else does. Why think for yourself when others can think for you?

We go on.

Find that limits.

Most of them have to do with what the Federal Government can do to the individual. Not what power they have over the states.

And conservatives? Heck..that's what they have a problem with.

They WANT the federal government to be able to torture people, to hold people without a way to defend themselves, and to give corporations the right to grab land if there is a profit in it.

 

[Antiderivative]

The whole argument was lost essentially when we stopped relying on a militia based military and moved to a professional one.

I love a professional military and paying blood money for cold-blooded killers. Give this man a Purple Heart.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Well, as I've stated and you've ignored, I believe the Supreme Court was wrong on this. Appeals to authority don't resolve whether said authority is right.

Then what are you replacing the Supreme Court with? Who makes the final determination as to the meaning of the Founding Document, if the Framers themselves were unable to do so?

Both states and the federal government are guilty of expanding government power beyond the limits set by the Constitution and the Supreme Court has largely ignored both. But in reality, it's voters who have failed to uphold the values of limited government. In the end, quibbling over the intent and meaning of the original text of the constitution is meaningless if voters don't care. If most people want an intrusive, caretaker government, that's what we'll get. It's up the rest of us to figure out how to fight back.

And if the majority of the people elect to violate the rights of the minority, what is the injured party’s means of redress? Or are they simply forced to have their Constitutional rights violated?

Now you're simply fantasizing. Libertarians are far more adamant defenders of our liberties than any other political party.

Examples? How can liberty be retained if the rule of law is abandoned? Or do you, unlike the Framers, believe men are capable of ruling justly?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And as already addressed, the Supreme Court has established over 200 years of case law explaining what Congress may do and what it may not, starting with McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819), where the Court ruled ‘[t]he States have no power, by taxation or otherwise, to impede or in any manner control any of the constitutional means employed by the U.S. government to execute its powers under the Constitution.’

This was reaffirmed in United States v. Darby Lumber Co., 312 U.S. 100 (1941), where the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 was upheld as Constitutional pursuant to the Commerce Clause:

The Tenth Amendment therefore never authorized states to ignore Federal statues, enact laws which in of themselves violated the Federal Constitution, or otherwise violate the civil rights of their citizens.

And, as I recently pointed out to you, SCOTUS recently ruled unanimously that the powers of the federal government are not only not unlimited, individuals can actually challenge laws under the 10th Amendment. Please feel free to continue ignoring reality, current case law, and anything else that contradicts you if it interferes with your pretense you actually know what you are talking about.

It is not a matter of ‘crowing’ about anything – it’s a matter of libertarians’ and others on the extreme right providing justification for their position in the context of the rule of law.

Libertarians are not the extreme right.

Historically it has been the states and local jurisdictions that have violated the civil rights of Americans, not the Federal government. For 57 years the Supreme Court has addressed various cases of civil rights violations by the states and other jurisdictions from Brown v Board of Education in 1954 to Lawrence v Texas in 2003. These and other cases have addressed violations including but not limited to privacy rights, equal protection rights, and due process rights.

What universe are you from? SCOTUS ruled that the 14th Amendment did not give Congress the power to force states to honor civil rights. You can twist that to mean that states violated those tights if you want, but the fact is that the federal government did it first.

It’s troubling and inconsistent on the part of libertarians to be overly concerned about the government excess in fiscal matters yet unconcerned with regard to government excess in civil liberties issues.

Yet you think it is perfectly consistent to do the opposite.

It’s also not a matter of ‘thinking for yourself,’ rather, it’s an understanding of the Constitution in the context of the rule of law, of understanding the role of the Supreme Court to interpret the meaning of the Founding Document authorized by the rule of law, and that the original intent of the Framers was diverse and mutable at the time, never realizing consensus.

Thank you for proving my point.