You are not logged in. Join Free! | Log In Thank you!    

Welcome to your Green Bay Packers Online Community!

Since 2006, PackersHome has been providing a unique experience for fans.
Your participation is greatly anticipated!
Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

3 Pages<123>
Share
Options
View
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline texaspackerbacker  
#16 Posted : Saturday, September 21, 2013 7:48:05 AM(UTC)
texaspackerbacker

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

United States
Posts: 2,369
Joined: 3/4/2013(UTC)
Location: Texas

Applause Given: 348
Applause Received: 209

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker Go to Quoted Post
The Commerce Clause (per Justice Jackson in Wickard v. Filburn, 1942).

So it's not just 15, but nearly 75 years since "strict construction" fell out of the story.

And with now three generations of Americans "educated" in schools that have been teaching deference to government as both mommy and daddy of last resort, I fear that it's never going to get back in.

You see, I don't see this as a "political" problem at all. Politics is about getting power to make other people do things we want them to do. It's merely a place where people argue about what government should do to others on our behalf.

What is needed is not a political solution where we shift power from liberal to conservative or from conservative to liberal. It's not a solution where we use the state to make others do what I think they should do or make me do what others think I should do. What is needed is a constitutional solution. A solution where we recognize that politics is not the solution. That it cannot be, even when it acts via a majority of the population.

We need a solution where we re-constitute ourselves and remember (or, for most, now, learn) that the function of the state is not to give control to experts and other philosopher-kings as that idiot Plato thought. It is not to impose order on individuals who naturally will war against each other like Thomas Hobbes thought. And it is definitely not a toolbox for building us into "the good society," for providing "the greatest good for the greatest number," as Jeremy Bentham and his legion of liberal and conservative descendants have it. The state is merely something that we use to protect the rights of individuals of those who, out of bad motives or good ones, would use the power of the state to restrict.

But in a nation where less than ten percent has ever carefully thought about the words of the Declaration of Independence, where less than a fraction of one percent has ever read Paine or Burke, The Federalist OR The Anti-Federalist?

I have no clue how it will ever happen.

All I know how to do is emulate Don Quixote.



Excellent post, Wade, but you really should re-format it so that your wise words you up as yours instead of looking like I said it. Perhaps we could get some moderator help ......



hahaha I think something is needs to be repaired in the quoting. It did it to my post also.

Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans.
If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.
Offline texaspackerbacker  
#17 Posted : Saturday, September 21, 2013 8:11:06 AM(UTC)
texaspackerbacker

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

United States
Posts: 2,369
Joined: 3/4/2013(UTC)
Location: Texas

Applause Given: 348
Applause Received: 209

Was your reference to the Commerce Clause meant to say that there in fact IS Constitutional authority for all that low-level local and state government crap and intrusion that I mentioned, so much of which gets rammed through without people or even legislators having the opportunity to vote down? Or were you just referring to the Commerce Clause as the primary Constitutional excuse used by "statists" to justify what they do?

I wholeheartedly agree with you about the disgusting re-education of several generations of Americans. The same deplorable result can be seen in a LOT of different topics beyond what you would call statism - social and moral beliefs and standards, even sports (see the concussion thread hahahaha). The thing is, Wade, those crowd-followers - the disgustingly re-educated masses - now have the voting majority by a wide margin. And lest you see any hope of undoing the situation, just look around at who dominates the three primary avenues of shaping minds: the education establishment itself, the news media, and the entertainment community.

Your line about Don Quixote: the major difference between Don Quixote and you (plural you including all those who deplore the various manifestations of "statism") is this:

When Don Quixote fought the windmills, the windmills did NOT become exponentially stronger. You guys in splitting the forces of good, have indeed strengthened extremely the exact people who are doing the most harm in terms of expanding statism. Can't you see that?
Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans.
If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.
Offline Wade  
#18 Posted : Saturday, September 21, 2013 10:47:39 AM(UTC)
Wade

Rank: All Pro

Posts: 5,649
Joined: 8/1/2009(UTC)
Location: nowhere of importance

Applause Given: 560
Applause Received: 586

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker Go to Quoted Post
Was your reference to the Commerce Clause meant to say that there in fact IS Constitutional authority for all that low-level local and state government crap and intrusion that I mentioned, so much of which gets rammed through without people or even legislators having the opportunity to vote down? Or were you just referring to the Commerce Clause as the primary Constitutional excuse used by "statists" to justify what they do?
Quote:


Unfortunately, because of the breadth of the decision in Wickard v. Filburn and subsequent Commerce Clause cases, there is virtually no limitation on what Congress and Feds can do to regulate our activities. I think Roberts was *trying* to put some limitation on it in the Obamacare case (can't remember name), but his reasoning was (or had to be given that long line of precedents) so tortured to get there IMO that it'll be easy for any judge to effectively ignore whatever restriction it was.

As for state and local governments, no, the Commerce clause hasn't enabled that except perhaps indirectly. Directly, the broad Commerce Power reading courts have given makes it easier for Feds to overrule actions by state/locals.

Indirectly, though, this broad reading of Article I (transforming it from a statement of limited federal powers to a statement of unlimited ones) just enables and encourages the "government is here to make life better" notion. If you look at Jackson's rationale it isn't so bad (Jackson, after all, was a pretty bright guy and a fine jurist), but if you look at what has happened when his rule was in the hands of second- and third-rate Supremes, and third- and fourth-rate judges in the lower courts, the federal rationale trumping state/local action is invariably some "better society"/"greatest good for the greatest number" nonsense. And you see that the opposing position invariably couches things in terms of the relative benefits of having the feds helping us coerce each other or having the states/locals helping us coerce each other.

Look carefully at much of the "state's rights" argument against judicial activism and you see that it is a debate about which part of the "state" [used as a synonym for government in general] has the rights to threaten people with bad consequences if they behave in one way and give them good consequences when they behave another way. Some want the fed government to have the power to coerce (most modern liberals), others want that power reserved for state [a particular kind of geographically-determined government] and local governments. Neither, however, has much interest in restraining themselves in the support of some government action to coerce other people.

Quote:

I wholeheartedly agree with you about the disgusting re-education of several generations of Americans. The same deplorable result can be seen in a LOT of different topics beyond what you would call statism - social and moral beliefs and standards, even sports (see the concussion thread hahahaha). The thing is, Wade, those crowd-followers - the disgustingly re-educated masses - now have the voting majority by a wide margin. And lest you see any hope of undoing the situation, just look around at who dominates the three primary avenues of shaping minds: the education establishment itself, the news media, and the entertainment community.

I have very little hope. A nation that re-elects people like our current President, majorities that can't find anyone better than Iowa's current governor, a nation that concedes the "leadership" function to the selections made by Republican and Democratic parties when neither has proven themselves worthy of their role in decades, a nation that pays more attention to what actors say about social problems and political worth than it does to engineers and nurses, a nation that thinks either CNN or FoxNews or any other network is worthy of their time, a nation whose citizens can rarely discuss politics more deeply than the sound bites provided by candidate election committees? A nation whose holders of graduate and professional degrees are no better at filtering out the noise than high school drop outs or the victims of Downs syndrome. A nation whose citizens have barely heard of Locke, Montesquieu, Blackstone, Burke, and Tocqueville, much less actually read, discussed, or simply thought about their ideas.

No, I'm not very hopeful.

I don't see the Thomas Paines among us. I don't see the Jeffersons and the Madisons and the Adamses and the Franklins. And I certainly don't see any George Washingtons. But I do see a nation that would support the locking up any Paul Reveres or tSam Adamses.

No, I'm not very hopeful. We may have enough inertia to hold the forces of darkness out until the Babel of our social democracy and our deference to authority and our me-me-me-ness finally implodes like a worn-out Vegas resort.

I might be one of the lucky ones, since my prior bad living is likely to mean I fail to reach our average life expectancy. But the Great Experiment is on life support and our respirator cords are so damn frayed that anyone who tries to plug the machine in is more likely to get electrocuted than he or she is to get the patient breathing better.

No, I'm not very hopeful. Not at all.

Quote:

Your line about Don Quixote: the major difference between Don Quixote and you (plural you including all those who deplore the various manifestations of "statism") is this:

When Don Quixote fought the windmills, the windmills did NOT become exponentially stronger. You guys in splitting the forces of good, have indeed strengthened extremely the exact people who are doing the most harm in terms of expanding statism. Can't you see that?


Ah, but you err in thinking that there are forces of good being split. Because Pogo was right.

The enemy is not the liberals or the conservatives. It is not CNN and it is not FoxNews. It is not the Republicans, it is not the Democrats. It is not the left or the right or the center. It's not even that Obama slug.

The enemy is met every day. In the mirror. It is us.

Politicians, bureaucrats, they're just really expensive prostitutes with a lifetime supply of penicillin.

It's us, the addicts to sex with really expensive prostitutes, who are the disease carriers.

The problem isn't the whorehouse. It isn't even that the whorehouse is now taller than the Twin Towers. The problem is that we all want to keep building whorehouses even though we're suffering from late-stage syphilis.
None of the above. It wouldn't have been a wasted vote. Obama and Romney -- Those were the wasted votes.
Offline texaspackerbacker  
#19 Posted : Saturday, September 21, 2013 11:48:21 AM(UTC)
texaspackerbacker

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

United States
Posts: 2,369
Joined: 3/4/2013(UTC)
Location: Texas

Applause Given: 348
Applause Received: 209

Originally Posted by: Wade Go to Quoted Post
I have very little hope. A nation that re-elects people like our current President, majorities that can't find anyone better than Iowa's current governor, a nation that concedes the "leadership" function to the selections made by Republican and Democratic parties when neither has proven themselves worthy of their role in decades, a nation that pays more attention to what actors say about social problems and political worth than it does to engineers and nurses, a nation that thinks either CNN or FoxNews or any other network is worthy of their time, a nation whose citizens can rarely discuss politics more deeply than the sound bites provided by candidate election committees? A nation whose holders of graduate and professional degrees are no better at filtering out the noise than high school drop outs or the victims of Downs syndrome. A nation whose citizens have barely heard of Locke, Montesquieu, Blackstone, Burke, and Tocqueville, much less actually read, discussed, or simply thought about their ideas.

No, I'm not very hopeful.

I don't see the Thomas Paines among us. I don't see the Jeffersons and the Madisons and the Adamses and the Franklins. And I certainly don't see any George Washingtons. But I do see a nation that would support the locking up any Paul Reveres or tSam Adamses.

No, I'm not very hopeful. We may have enough inertia to hold the forces of darkness out until the Babel of our social democracy and our deference to authority and our me-me-me-ness finally implodes like a worn-out Vegas resort.

I might be one of the lucky ones, since my prior bad living is likely to mean I fail to reach our average life expectancy. But the Great Experiment is on life support and our respirator cords are so damn frayed that anyone who tries to plug the machine in is more likely to get electrocuted than he or she is to get the patient breathing better.

No, I'm not very hopeful. Not at all.



Ah, but you err in thinking that there are forces of good being split. Because Pogo was right.

The enemy is not the liberals or the conservatives. It is not CNN and it is not FoxNews. It is not the Republicans, it is not the Democrats. It is not the left or the right or the center. It's not even that Obama slug.

The enemy is met every day. In the mirror. It is us.

Politicians, bureaucrats, they're just really expensive prostitutes with a lifetime supply of penicillin.

It's us, the addicts to sex with really expensive prostitutes, who are the disease carriers.

The problem isn't the whorehouse. It isn't even that the whorehouse is now taller than the Twin Towers. The problem is that we all want to keep building whorehouses even though we're suffering from late-stage syphilis.


Wade, I greatly admire your idealism, but didn't Paine or any of those other shapers of ideology ever say anything about "the lesser of two evils", not "throwing out the baby with the bath water", "half a loaf is better than none"?

Will you not concede at all that one political side is EXTREMELY more prone to enable "statism" by either half of the definition? And that by stubbornly dividing conservative pro-American people/voters, your side is putting that side in position to run rampant in the direction you don't want the country to go?

Back to your earlier post about Bentham and "the greater good for the greater number". IMO, it makes a helluva large difference whether that statement is mere false rhetoric designed to get votes/support OR whether it actually is the greater good for the greater number. What if it is the latter? That could easily imply a lack of fairness - grabbing from the smaller number of achievers in order to make life better for the larger number of consumers. People can argue about whether that is a good thing or not - that is the essence of the liberal v. conservative debate - the self sufficiency/self serving v. humanity/kindness debate. For purpose of this post, I'm not gonna come down on either side of that debate. I'm simply gonna say, there are a whole lot more of the consumers than there are achievers/producers. Therefore, it is a losing proposition politically to go against "the greater good for the greater number". If it's all just false rhetoric, that is another matter, but even then, the falseness must be defeated, and that is definitely an uphill battle when all the effective "educators" i.e propagandists are on the other side.

Maybe all of us "statist" conservatives should heal the rift by coming over and joining your side - supporting God damned Ron Paul - or at least Rand Paul or whatever. But IMNHO, that would just do too much harm for the country - sacrificing homeland security for phantom rights and freedoms which are threatened only in the minds of a paranoid few. And throwing away American world dominance and letting the chips fall in terms of not combatting the evil which America has saved the world from for nearly 100 years. Neville Chamberlain would have been a big Ron Paul supporter. So would Hitler hahahaha - and all the proponents of Communism too.

Nope, we, the Pro-American conservatives just can't throw away American security and dominance. Instead, we NEED the help of you, the anti-statism conservatives. With that help, we have a solid chance of "half a loaf" of anti-statism - the domestic side. Without it, we are split, and we get whatever Obama and the radical left decide to inflict on us.
Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans.
If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.
Offline Wade  
#20 Posted : Saturday, September 21, 2013 4:07:08 PM(UTC)
Wade

Rank: All Pro

Posts: 5,649
Joined: 8/1/2009(UTC)
Location: nowhere of importance

Applause Given: 560
Applause Received: 586

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker Go to Quoted Post
Wade, I greatly admire your idealism, but didn't Paine or any of those other shapers of ideology ever say anything about "the lesser of two evils", not "throwing out the baby with the bath water", "half a loaf is better than none"?

Will you not concede at all that one political side is EXTREMELY more prone to enable "statism" by either half of the definition? And that by stubbornly dividing conservative pro-American people/voters, your side is putting that side in position to run rampant in the direction you don't want the country to go?

Back to your earlier post about Bentham and "the greater good for the greater number". IMO, it makes a helluva large difference whether that statement is mere false rhetoric designed to get votes/support OR whether it actually is the greater good for the greater number. What if it is the latter? That could easily imply a lack of fairness - grabbing from the smaller number of achievers in order to make life better for the larger number of consumers. People can argue about whether that is a good thing or not - that is the essence of the liberal v. conservative debate - the self sufficiency/self serving v. humanity/kindness debate. For purpose of this post, I'm not gonna come down on either side of that debate. I'm simply gonna say, there are a whole lot more of the consumers than there are achievers/producers. Therefore, it is a losing proposition politically to go against "the greater good for the greater number". If it's all just false rhetoric, that is another matter, but even then, the falseness must be defeated, and that is definitely an uphill battle when all the effective "educators" i.e propagandists are on the other side.

Maybe all of us "statist" conservatives should heal the rift by coming over and joining your side - supporting God damned Ron Paul - or at least Rand Paul or whatever. But IMNHO, that would just do too much harm for the country - sacrificing homeland security for phantom rights and freedoms which are threatened only in the minds of a paranoid few. And throwing away American world dominance and letting the chips fall in terms of not combatting the evil which America has saved the world from for nearly 100 years. Neville Chamberlain would have been a big Ron Paul supporter. So would Hitler hahahaha - and all the proponents of Communism too.

Nope, we, the Pro-American conservatives just can't throw away American security and dominance. Instead, we NEED the help of you, the anti-statism conservatives. With that help, we have a solid chance of "half a loaf" of anti-statism - the domestic side. Without it, we are split, and we get whatever Obama and the radical left decide to inflict on us.


I'm not sure how I "divide" conservative voters. Are you confusing me with Ron/Rand Paul?

As for one side being worse statists than the other...I think it's a tossup. Oh, if I have to settle for "lesser of evils" I probably would go to the conservative side of things. But that's because I'm as bad as everyone else -- it doesn't bother me as much when the rules restrict others more than they restrict me.

But if you look at the so-called conservatives/Republicans since I've been paying attention -- Nixon, Ford, Reagan (who I voted for twice), Bush I (who I voted for), Bush II-A (who I voted for), Bush II-B (who I didn't) -- they have increased the reaching/sticky/manipulating/forcing/regulatory fingers into our lives just as much as the Carters and Clintons did. Government didn't get smaller under either of them. Intrusion into our lives didn't get smaller.

And the reason it didn't get smaller is, again, that that's what the American people demand of them. "There oughta be a law" is our natural reaction to just about any problem.

Sorry, but I am no longer a conservative of any kind.

If you want the state, any state, to solve our problems, you are part of the problem. Not part of the solution.

The problem isn't splitting the vote. The problem is thinking voting is the way to solve the problems. The problem isn't that the other side gets power. The problem is thinking that getting power is the way to solve the problems.



None of the above. It wouldn't have been a wasted vote. Obama and Romney -- Those were the wasted votes.
thanks Post received 2 applause.
Zero2Cool on 9/21/2013(UTC), 4PackGirl on 9/21/2013(UTC)
Offline DakotaT  
#21 Posted : Saturday, September 21, 2013 4:34:28 PM(UTC)
DakotaT

Rank: Super Bowl MVP

Posts: 6,963
Joined: 8/18/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 566
Applause Received: 1,190

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker Go to Quoted Post
Wade, I greatly admire your idealism, but didn't Paine or any of those other shapers of ideology ever say anything about "the lesser of two evils", not "throwing out the baby with the bath water", "half a loaf is better than none"?

Will you not concede at all that one political side is EXTREMELY more prone to enable "statism" by either half of the definition? And that by stubbornly dividing conservative pro-American people/voters, your side is putting that side in position to run rampant in the direction you don't want the country to go?

Back to your earlier post about Bentham and "the greater good for the greater number". IMO, it makes a helluva large difference whether that statement is mere false rhetoric designed to get votes/support OR whether it actually is the greater good for the greater number. What if it is the latter? That could easily imply a lack of fairness - grabbing from the smaller number of achievers in order to make life better for the larger number of consumers. People can argue about whether that is a good thing or not - that is the essence of the liberal v. conservative debate - the self sufficiency/self serving v. humanity/kindness debate. For purpose of this post, I'm not gonna come down on either side of that debate. I'm simply gonna say, there are a whole lot more of the consumers than there are achievers/producers. Therefore, it is a losing proposition politically to go against "the greater good for the greater number". If it's all just false rhetoric, that is another matter, but even then, the falseness must be defeated, and that is definitely an uphill battle when all the effective "educators" i.e propagandists are on the other side.

Maybe all of us "statist" conservatives should heal the rift by coming over and joining your side - supporting God damned Ron Paul - or at least Rand Paul or whatever. But IMNHO, that would just do too much harm for the country - sacrificing homeland security for phantom rights and freedoms which are threatened only in the minds of a paranoid few. And throwing away American world dominance and letting the chips fall in terms of not combatting the evil which America has saved the world from for nearly 100 years. Neville Chamberlain would have been a big Ron Paul supporter. So would Hitler hahahaha - and all the proponents of Communism too.

Nope, we, the Pro-American conservatives just can't throw away American security and dominance. Instead, we NEED the help of you, the anti-statism conservatives. With that help, we have a solid chance of "half a loaf" of anti-statism - the domestic side. Without it, we are split, and we get whatever Obama and the radical left decide to inflict on us.


What the hell difference does it make, the Republicans aren't winning the White House back for decades. Poor Americans are sick of the bull shit trickle down economics that created the haves and have nots. Go beat your head against the wall, Texas. Really, why should it matter anyway to a guy on the dole like you?
UserPostedImage
Offline Wade  
#22 Posted : Saturday, September 21, 2013 4:49:08 PM(UTC)
Wade

Rank: All Pro

Posts: 5,649
Joined: 8/1/2009(UTC)
Location: nowhere of importance

Applause Given: 560
Applause Received: 586

Re: half-a-loafing. Paine probably would have been the last of them to settle for half a loaf. (Either him or Sam Adams). We know him for "Common Sense" and (occasionally) "The Rights of Man", but to a lot of those of the time, even those who were on the same side, he was the scary guy, sort of a combination between Edward Abbey and G. Gordon Liddy.

The half-a-loafers were Hamilton, Jay, to a lesser extent J Adams, then a couple generations later, Lincoln, and, finally, a century after that, Nixon.

To my mind, of the group, the strongest historical case for your "security" argument would be Nixon.If there was a time it was necessary for a lesser-of-two-evils approach, it was the Cold War.

But IMO we have nothing like the threat that the Soviet Union posed today. It's not even close, all the NBC worries notwithstanding. Since the Wall fell and the USSR crumbled has been our best opportunity ever to get past "lesser of two evils", to choose something other than Realpolitick OR social democracy. Instead, we've contented ourselves, for over 30 years now, with the lesser of two evils approach.

And where has it got us? We're so damn ignorant as a nation that we not only elect Obama once, we elect him twice, despite his having not a single real idea of his own, despite his spouting the same crap that 1945-2005 showed to be the hubris of the yammering over-educated residents of ivory towers.

We're so damn ignorant as a nation that the best we can can come up with as "Presidents" for nearly a quarter of a century is Clinton I, Bush II, and Obama? The best we can come up with to be one step away from the presidency are Gore, Cheney, and Biden?

The best "lesser of two evils" we could come up with in 2012 was Mitt Romney?

John McCain was a bona fide hero, I'll grant that. He is someone with more integrity in his little pinkie than our current Prez has in his entire body. And perhaps he could, like Washington and Eisenhower before him, have transferred from the battlefield to the Oval Office and been what the nation needed. Maybe. As the Palin selection made clear, he sure wasn't afraid of potential negative reaction when he did something other than the usual Washington cynicism.

On the other hand, Americans showed themselves not at all ready for someone willing to truly go outside the box. Instead, they chose a Facebooking babbler of nonsense with "oratorical skills" and marketing cynicism. And despite a first term that featured "new ideas" like spending 80K of taxpayer money for a car worth 3000, a petulant child who pandered cynically to the lowest-common denominator while taking a bigger tithe than the most shameless televangelist, the American people did what? They re-elected him.



None of the above. It wouldn't have been a wasted vote. Obama and Romney -- Those were the wasted votes.
Offline DakotaT  
#23 Posted : Saturday, September 21, 2013 4:59:28 PM(UTC)
DakotaT

Rank: Super Bowl MVP

Posts: 6,963
Joined: 8/18/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 566
Applause Received: 1,190

Originally Posted by: Wade Go to Quoted Post


The best "lesser of two evils" we could come up with in 2012 was Mitt Romney?

John McCain was a bona fide hero, I'll grant that. He is someone with more integrity in his little pinkie than our current Prez has in his entire body. And perhaps he could, like Washington and Eisenhower before him, have transferred from the battlefield to the Oval Office and been what the nation needed. Maybe. As the Palin selection made clear, he sure wasn't afraid of potential negative reaction when he did something other than the usual Washington cynicism.

On the other hand, Americans showed themselves not at all ready for someone willing to truly go outside the box. Instead, they chose a Facebooking babbler of nonsense with "oratorical skills" and marketing cynicism. And despite a first term that featured "new ideas" like spending 80K of taxpayer money for a car worth 3000, a petulant child who pandered cynically to the lowest-common denominator while taking a bigger tithe than the most shameless televangelist, the American people did what? They re-elected him.





Mitt Romney is not the "lessor of two evils", he is the poster child for what is wrong in this country. A man given his whole life on a silver platter, but instead of giving back, all he accomplished was making more money, or should I say stealing more money.

I'll grant you that John McCain is a war hero, but come on, deifying a war monger - that's pretty low Wade.

Barry was re-elected because of Mitten's 47% speech, where he basically told things the way he really felt. I am totally convinced of that. I don't care for Barry either, but I like him better than McCain and Mittens.

I have something for you two to chew on: Jesus absolutely hated rich people, but loved the poor and oppressed with all his heart. There's going to be no reward for the wealthy in heaven, in fact they may very well be in deep shit come Judgment Day!
UserPostedImage
Offline texaspackerbacker  
#24 Posted : Saturday, September 21, 2013 6:03:13 PM(UTC)
texaspackerbacker

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

United States
Posts: 2,369
Joined: 3/4/2013(UTC)
Location: Texas

Applause Given: 348
Applause Received: 209

Originally Posted by: Wade Go to Quoted Post
I'm not sure how I "divide" conservative voters. Are you confusing me with Ron/Rand Paul?

As for one side being worse statists than the other...I think it's a tossup. Oh, if I have to settle for "lesser of evils" I probably would go to the conservative side of things. But that's because I'm as bad as everyone else -- it doesn't bother me as much when the rules restrict others more than they restrict me.

But if you look at the so-called conservatives/Republicans since I've been paying attention -- Nixon, Ford, Reagan (who I voted for twice), Bush I (who I voted for), Bush II-A (who I voted for), Bush II-B (who I didn't) -- they have increased the reaching/sticky/manipulating/forcing/regulatory fingers into our lives just as much as the Carters and Clintons did. Government didn't get smaller under either of them. Intrusion into our lives didn't get smaller.

And the reason it didn't get smaller is, again, that that's what the American people demand of them. "There oughta be a law" is our natural reaction to just about any problem.

Sorry, but I am no longer a conservative of any kind.

If you want the state, any state, to solve our problems, you are part of the problem. Not part of the solution.

The problem isn't splitting the vote. The problem is thinking voting is the way to solve the problems. The problem isn't that the other side gets power. The problem is thinking that getting power is the way to solve the problems.





I guess I should have repeated, when I said "you", I meant you plural all of those with this "anti-statism above all else" mindset. Hell, I am anti-statism, but I just don't see most manifestations of it as a big deal.

Would you consider the possibility that Reagan, both Bushes, and probably Nixon and Ford also had virtually no chance to reverse any statism because of Dem/libs in Congress? Yeah, I know for some of those years, there was actually a Republican majority, by using the need for a 2/3 vote to cut off debate, the Dem/libs kept anything substantial from happening. At any rate, I'm sure the Obama/ultra-left wing crowd thanks you (plural) very much for enabling them to get elected and inflict horrible crap on America and Americans.

I can sympathize also with the Dakota types who really do eat up that shit about the "greater good for the greater numbers". The Republicans really have practiced political FUBAR by selling out to the rich and failing to take advantage of the clear will of the people - right down to today's news - the continuing resolution thing.

Myself, I have found peace in this whole apparently screwed up situation by becoming more and more of a believer in the conspiracy theory about "Insiders" - "Illuminati" or whatever they would be called, controlling things from behind the scenes and maintaining the Status Quo - that magnificent Status Quo that has America on top and Americans' security, freedom, and comfort level well in hand.

Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans.
If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.
Offline DakotaT  
#25 Posted : Sunday, September 22, 2013 5:21:47 PM(UTC)
DakotaT

Rank: Super Bowl MVP

Posts: 6,963
Joined: 8/18/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 566
Applause Received: 1,190

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker Go to Quoted Post


I can sympathize also with the Dakota types who really do eat up that sh!t about the "greater good for the greater numbers". The Republicans really have practiced political FUBAR by selling out to the rich and failing to take advantage of the clear will of the people - right down to today's news - the continuing resolution thing.

Myself, I have found peace in this whole apparently screwed up situation by becoming more and more of a believer in the conspiracy theory about "Insiders" - "Illuminati" or whatever they would be called, controlling things from behind the scenes and maintaining the Status Quo - that magnificent Status Quo that has America on top and Americans' security, freedom, and comfort level well in hand.



You're finally getting a little smarter. Now it's time to work on that evil heart beating in your chest and your obvious lackthereof a conscience. God hates Republicans, count on it.
UserPostedImage
Offline texaspackerbacker  
#26 Posted : Monday, September 23, 2013 5:41:34 AM(UTC)
texaspackerbacker

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

United States
Posts: 2,369
Joined: 3/4/2013(UTC)
Location: Texas

Applause Given: 348
Applause Received: 209

Originally Posted by: DakotaT Go to Quoted Post
You're finally getting a little smarter. Now it's time to work on that evil heart beating in your chest and your obvious lackthereof a conscience. God hates Republicans, count on it.


hahahaha Uh, thanks, I think. I'm the same as I've always been, Dakota. Having a heart does a whole lot more good for whatever beneficiaries there might be for your benificence if you combine that heart with good sense and pragmatism. And hell yeah, sometimes a conscience does get in the way - even more so when you are doing good for others.

God actually LOVES Republicans because they blindly try to do good for everybody - a forgotten little thing called "fairness". I suppose in some ways, I am more like a Democrat - picking and choosing - trying to do the "greatest good for the greatest number" - just with a different way of approaching that. I've got a better grip on practical reality than they do. Then there's the Libertarians (no offense Wade and the plethora of others in this forum in that category - maybe even you, Dakota) who don't want to do good for anybody. I say "maybe" for you, Dakota, because probably you have the heart to do some good, but you just have a total lack of any grasp of reality.

The clear way to achieve that greatest good for the greatest number is by maintaining the status quo - AMERICA dominating the world, protecting against Nazism, Communism, Islamicism, or any other evil isms that may come along, and enabling the world to become freer and more prosperous by following our lead. Only a self-hating reverse ethnocentric fool would deny that - the greatness and benificence of America, right? I sure can't think of anybody like that - can you, Dakota?
Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans.
If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.
Offline Zero2Cool  
#27 Posted : Monday, September 23, 2013 5:51:59 AM(UTC)
Zero2Cool

Rank: Legend

United States
Posts: 25,224
Joined: 10/13/2006(UTC)
Location: Green Bay, WI

Applause Given: 1,738
Applause Received: 1,787

I dunno what could possess someone to think tossing a firecracker anywhere near the White House is a worthwhile idea to carry out.

UserPostedImage
Click here and find the LATEST Packers News!
Offline Wade  
#28 Posted : Monday, September 23, 2013 2:51:14 PM(UTC)
Wade

Rank: All Pro

Posts: 5,649
Joined: 8/1/2009(UTC)
Location: nowhere of importance

Applause Given: 560
Applause Received: 586

Originally Posted by: DakotaT Go to Quoted Post
What the hell difference does it make, the Republicans aren't winning the White House back for decades. Poor Americans are sick of the bull sh!t trickle down economics that created the haves and have nots.


You're assuming that the White House is going to be around for decades.

That to me is a highly debatable assumption.

Texas is much more optimistic than I am.

Every day I'm more convinced that the only reason the revolution doesn't happen in my lifetime will be that I end up dying earlier than most people my age will.

None of the above. It wouldn't have been a wasted vote. Obama and Romney -- Those were the wasted votes.
Offline Wade  
#29 Posted : Monday, September 23, 2013 2:55:15 PM(UTC)
Wade

Rank: All Pro

Posts: 5,649
Joined: 8/1/2009(UTC)
Location: nowhere of importance

Applause Given: 560
Applause Received: 586

Originally Posted by: DakotaT Go to Quoted Post

I have something for you two to chew on: Jesus absolutely hated rich people, but loved the poor and oppressed with all his heart. There's going to be no reward for the wealthy in heaven, in fact they may very well be in deep sh!t come Judgment Day!


Actually, Jesus didn't hate rich people. He didn't even hate wealth. He didn't hate anyone.

He merely pointed out that it is harder for the rich to get to heaven. Not because they are rich, but because their wealth convinces them they (and their wealth) are more important than they should be. Not because they are rich, because, being rich (with all the "comfort, power, and fame" that greater wealth confers) makes it much easier to commit idolatry of man and his works, and therefore easier to break the Great Commandment.

Wealth isn't the problem. It's what wealth does to us.

None of the above. It wouldn't have been a wasted vote. Obama and Romney -- Those were the wasted votes.
thanks Post received 1 applause.
wpr on 9/23/2013(UTC)
Offline Wade  
#30 Posted : Monday, September 23, 2013 3:03:24 PM(UTC)
Wade

Rank: All Pro

Posts: 5,649
Joined: 8/1/2009(UTC)
Location: nowhere of importance

Applause Given: 560
Applause Received: 586

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool Go to Quoted Post
I dunno what could possess someone to think tossing a firecracker anywhere near the White House is a worthwhile idea to carry out.


Do you know why we started doing the firecracker/firework thing on the fourth of July?

I remember going to 4th of July fireworks when the last one was always a big multi-color explosion in the shape of the US flag.

Firecrackers are a lot older than the United States, but in this country they have long been connected to our politics. And not just to our politics, but to the way we constitute ourselves as a nation and why we constitute ourselves as a nation.

I'm not ascribing high motives to the person who threw these fireworks. My guess is he's probably another zombie American. However, it does seem to me that throwing things at the White House, especially something with a historic relationship with the essence of "US", might be a form of political "speech" we might be wise to have more of rather than less.



None of the above. It wouldn't have been a wasted vote. Obama and Romney -- Those were the wasted votes.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
3 Pages<123>
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Powered by YAF 2.1.0 | YAF © 2003-2014, Yet Another Forum.NET
This page was generated in 0.648 seconds.