The Briefing Room
Exclusive Content => Member Journals => The Last Wire => Topic started by: Luis Gonzalez on May 21, 2014, 05:20:28 am
-
T.E.A. and Solipsism with Lolita, or How SoCons Killed the Party
By Luis Gonzalez
The Last Wire (https://thelastwire.wordpress.org)
The Book
Vladimir Nabokov's "Lolita" is a stunningly beautiful example of prose at its very best. An absolute pleasure to read and to immerse oneself in the writer's delicately crafted imagery, Lolita, as seen through the eyes of Humbert Humbert is the epitome of one who "walks in beauty like the night."
"Oh, what a dreamy pet! She walked up to the open suitcase as if stalking it from afar, at a kind of slow-motion walk, peering at that distant treasure box on the luggage support. (Was there something wrong, I wondered, with those great gray eyes of hers, or were we both plunged in the same enchanted mist?)
The deftness of the prose is incredible. In your mind's eye you can "see" exactly what the writer wants you to see moving at the exact pace that he intends for you to move at.
"She stepped up to it, lifting her rather high-heeled feet rather high and bending her beautiful boy-knees while she walked through dilating space with the lentor of one walking under water or in a flight dream. Then she raised by the armlets a copper-colored, charming and quite expensive vest, very slowly stretching it between her silent hands as if she were a bemused bird-hunter holding his breath over the incredible bird he spreads out by the tips of its flaming wings."
Just then, you feel a tinge of something wrong.
You begin to sense the vulgar aesthetic of it all, and you come to grips with the realization that you're enjoying beauty through the eyes of a pedophile, and the book is never the same again. You struggle with Humbert's morally repugnant behavior even as you recognize the greatness of the writing.
Lolita herself is nothing like what Humbert describes her as being. She is a rather ordinary twelve year-old, and her exotic beauty resides solely in Humbert's mind. The nymphet described in the book exists because he exists.
That's classic solipsism.
The theory or view that the self is the only reality. An extreme form of skepticism which denies the possibility of any knowledge other than of one's own existence. Applied to political ideology, it is the belief that one specific set of beliefs is the only acceptable set of beliefs which defines that political ideology, to the exclusion of all others.
The modern day Social Conservative movement is Humbert Humbert to the Taxed Enough Already coalition's Lolita.
~~~
Read more at The Last Wire (https://thelastwire.wordpress.com/2014/05/21/t-e-a-and-solipsism-with-lolita/)
-
Looks like it was a less than stellar night for the Tea Party last night.
-
Who was it who said "Rumors of my death have been greatly exaggerated"?
-
Who was it who said "Rumors of my death have been greatly exaggerated"?
A guy who is now dead.
-
A guy who is now dead.
Now....I don't care who 'you' are! That there was funny as hell! :beer:
PS: another brilliant piece, Luis!
-
Personally, I don't consider these "losses" to be failures. They are more like sparring matches. They force a certain "vetting" of our candidates and they do force the incumbents to work a bit in the primary season, which can only be a good thing. In the end, the insurgents will nearly always be done in by the big money and marketing finesse of the establishment, except in cases where the incumbent is so reviled or the challenger so strong that an anomalous result occurs. When that happens, the GOPe candidates tend to squeal like stuck pigs. I just love that.
I do have a problem with people who suggest our candidates should always run unopposed in primaries. After all, where would the Globetrotters be without the Washington Nationals?
-
Now....I don't care who 'you' are! That there was funny as hell! :beer:
PS: another brilliant piece, Luis!
I missed my headline last night.
I place the blame squarely on the Miami Heat.
-
A guy who is now dead.
Look for the TEA party to take it up!
-
Personally, I don't consider these "losses" to be failures. They are more like sparring matches. They force a certain "vetting" of our candidates and they do force the incumbents to work a bit in the primary season, which can only be a good thing. In the end, the insurgents will nearly always be done in by the big money and marketing finesse of the establishment, except in cases where the incumbent is so reviled or the challenger so strong that an anomalous result occurs. When that happens, the GOPe candidates tend to squeal like stuck pigs. I just love that.
I do have a problem with people who suggest our candidates should always run unopposed in primaries. After all, where would the Globetrotters be without the Washington Nationals?
The premise of what the T.E.A. Party was has been lost, co-opted into near obscurity by the injection of Social Conservative ideals.
I loved the original movement's across the political spectrum's membership and their rejection of the Federal government's agenda. It felt completely "American" as opposed to conservative vs liberal.
That was refreshing, and that is now gone.
-
The premise of what the T.E.A. Party was has been lost, co-opted into near obscurity by the injection of Social Conservative ideals.
I loved the original movement's across the political spectrum's membership and their rejection of the Federal government's agenda. It felt completely "American" as opposed to conservative vs liberal.
That was refreshing, and that is now gone.
It's only "gone" in the MSM reporting.
I consider myself a T.E.A. Party charter member. And so did the rest of the MILLION people there on 9/12/09 in Washington, DC.
That number has grown exponentially.
We're out there, Luis.
But totally agree that it's the SOCON fringe that needs to be tied up and thrown in the trunk.
-
It's only "gone" in the MSM reporting.
I consider myself a T.E.A. Party charter member. And so did the rest of the MILLION people there on 9/12/09 in Washington, DC.
That number has grown exponentially.
We're out there, Luis.
But totally agree that it's the SOCON fringe that needs to be tied up and thrown in the trunk.
2009 was eons away politically, and what you joined up for no longer exists as it did when you signed up.
-
2009 was eons away politically, and what you joined up for no longer exists as it did when you signed up.
Sadly true, looking at it from this side of the pond. Back when the TEA party caught fire, it was a single issue that brought people together. I recall hardcore Liberals, Independents, and people who otherwise don't give a crap about politics banding together with Conservatives and saying "Enough."
-
The premise of what the T.E.A. Party was has been lost, co-opted into near obscurity by the injection of Social Conservative ideals.
I loved the original movement's across the political spectrum's membership and their rejection of the Federal government's agenda. It felt completely "American" as opposed to conservative vs liberal.
That was refreshing, and that is now gone.
I don't really know if this is true or not because I don't have any personal involvement with the Tea Party. I assume you do. From what I do know, there are different factions that call themselves Tea Party. I don't know if Dick Armey is still involved with one of them, but I wouldn't consider him to be a SoCon.
I'm just not sure you can paint the movement with such a broad brush. I still perceive it as a movement that is opposed to big government, not one that is involved in religious issues. But, as I say, I am not really involved with it, other than my inbox is sometimes filled with spam from different groups calling themselves Tea Party (a price I pay for belonging to the NRA). Most of the e-mails I get are focused on reducing the size of government, not on abortion or teaching creationism in the schools.
I do think the MSM has succeeded in marginalizing and demonizing the Tea Party. I think it's a shame when people who consider themselves conservatives join in that cause.
-
The Tea Party has a website?
God, Luis - you're playing the MSM's game here - trying to paint all of us with the SOCON paintbrush!
There is NO Tea Party website!
There are groups that have included Tea Party in their names - but they are not tied together in any kind of network by any means! There are people that claim to speak for the "Tea Party" - but they do not speak for me! There are idiots that run for office calling themselves Tea Party - but they are not selected by the vast majority of people that self-identify as Tea Party - just like with the GOP establishment! It's not possible for any idealogy that proclaims freedom to the individual to be monolithic!
To say that the Tea Party is on it's death bed is to join the MSM and to play by their rules. When you have the full force of the IRS, the White House - and now the GOP party - against you......you have a tough fight ahead of you. The Tea Party philosophy is one of FISCAL conservatism in government! Nothing more or less!
Just like in everything that becomes successful - you have your shysters, your opportunists, stalkers, imposters and outright criminals jumping on for the ride. We do have to move up to the next phase of a burgeoning new movement - we have to start organizing and find a leader - a spokesman for us. This is the hard part, but is essential to our eventual victory.
The Socons are just as bad as the Progressives they deride - they think that Government is the answer. They are the opportunists that are trying to take over the movement and the MSM sees that and rubs their greasy hands together with glee - ah! We see a weakness we can exploit! We do have to purge these types because they are working with the enemy in that they are weakening our mission.
We're not dead. We're learning - much like a baby learns to walk - by falling and picking ourselves back up. We've got some skinned knees but we're not mortally wounded. Our mission of fiscal conservatism is sound and as things keep deteriorating, it will resonate with more and more people. We just have to keep focused on the message and not allow ourselves to be led off the path - to go look at something "shiny".
-
I don't really know if this is true or not because I don't have any personal involvement with the Tea Party. I assume you do. From what I do know, there are different factions that call themselves Tea Party. I don't know if Dick Armey is still involved with one of them, but I wouldn't consider him to be a SoCon.
I'm just not sure you can paint the movement with such a broad brush. I still perceive it as a movement that is opposed to big government, not one that is involved in religious issues. But, as I say, I am not really involved with it, other than my inbox is sometimes filled with spam from different groups calling themselves Tea Party (a price I pay for belonging to the NRA). Most of the e-mails I get are focused on reducing the size of government, not on abortion or teaching creationism in the schools.
I do think the MSM has succeeded in marginalizing and demonizing the Tea Party. I think it's a shame when people who consider themselves conservatives join in that cause.
I don't see myself as attacking the party, I do see the party having been transformed into something that it wasn't intended to be, IMHO.
I do believe that our country will not set itself on the "right path" by way of the control of one Party over government as opposed to the other, or one ideology over the other.
It will do that when the country, as a country, not as differing ideologies or competing political parties, sets its collective mind to do it.
I saw some of that in the original T.E.A. Party, and I don't see it so much from the Party as it stands now.
Sadly, I also see conservatism as the ideology and practice of exclusion.
We need big tents... really big tents, where admission isn't set as adherence to a narrowing set of ideals.
-
The Tea Party has a website?
God, Luis - you're playing the MSM's game here - trying to paint all of us with the SOCON paintbrush!
There is NO Tea Party website!
There are groups that have included Tea Party in their names - but they are not tied together in any kind of network by any means! There are people that claim to speak for the "Tea Party" - but they do not speak for me! There are idiots that run for office calling themselves Tea Party - but they are not selected by the vast majority of people that self-identify as Tea Party - just like with the GOP establishment! It's not possible for any idealogy that proclaims freedom to the individual to be monolithic!
To say that the Tea Party is on it's death bed is to join the MSM and to play by their rules. When you have the full force of the IRS, the White House - and now the GOP party - against you......you have a tough fight ahead of you. The Tea Party philosophy is one of FISCAL conservatism in government! Nothing more or less!
Just like in everything that becomes successful - you have your shysters, your opportunists, stalkers, imposters and outright criminals jumping on for the ride. We do have to move up to the next phase of a burgeoning new movement - we have to start organizing and find a leader - a spokesman for us. This is the hard part, but is essential to our eventual victory.
The Socons are just as bad as the Progressives they deride - they think that Government is the answer. They are the opportunists that are trying to take over the movement and the MSM sees that and rubs their greasy hands together with glee - ah! We see a weakness we can exploit! We do have to purge these types because they are working with the enemy in that they are weakening our mission.
We're not dead. We're learning - much like a baby learns to walk - by falling and picking ourselves back up. We've got some skinned knees but we're not mortally wounded. Our mission of fiscal conservatism is sound and as things keep deteriorating, it will resonate with more and more people. We just have to keep focused on the message and not allow ourselves to be led off the path - to go look at something "shiny".
TeaParty.org
Tell Palin, Cruz et al.
P.S. Is that all you got out of the article?
-
TeaParty.org
Tell Palin, Cruz et al.
P.S. Is that all you got out of the article?
TeaParty.org - TeaParty.schmorgasbord
Never been there - don't ever plan to go there. They are just an organization that is trying to BE the tea party, I guess. There is no official Tea PARTY. No official Tea Party WEBSITE. No ballot that has the Tea Party listed on it. No national Tea Party convention - only a bunch of groups trying to establish themselves as the establishment. It's a necessary process, hopefully the fiscal conservative ideology will win the day.
The website. Is that all you got out of my answer?
-
TeaParty.org - TeaParty.schmorgasbord
Never been there - don't ever plan to go there. They are just an organization that is trying to BE the tea party, I guess. There is no official Tea PARTY. No official Tea Party WEBSITE. No ballot that has the Tea Party listed on it. No national Tea Party convention - only a bunch of groups trying to establish themselves as the establishment. It's a necessary process, hopefully the fiscal conservative ideology will win the day.
The website. Is that all you got out of my answer?
^-^
-
TeaParty.org - TeaParty.schmorgasbord
Never been there - don't ever plan to go there. They are just an organization that is trying to BE the tea party, I guess. There is no official Tea PARTY. No official Tea Party WEBSITE. No ballot that has the Tea Party listed on it. No national Tea Party convention - only a bunch of groups trying to establish themselves as the establishment. It's a necessary process, hopefully the fiscal conservative ideology will win the day.
The website. Is that all you got out of my answer?
Michelle Bachmann set up the Tea Party Caucus, in the House. She was head of it. Todd Akins was a member.
Luis' article described the hijacking of the original TEA Party movement, which BY definition, was NOT SoCon, by the Socons.
Multiple polls over the past year conclude the Tea Party brand has lost popularity, lost approval.
Deny it if you like. That doesn't alter those facts.
And of course when the left sees all this happening, they pick up on the opportunity. But they had such obvious volunteers for portraying the TP as goofballs, like O'Donnell, "I am not a witch."
-
The Tea Party has a website?
God, Luis - you're playing the MSM's game here - trying to paint all of us with the SOCON paintbrush!
There is NO Tea Party website!
There are groups that have included Tea Party in their names - but they are not tied together in any kind of network by any means! There are people that claim to speak for the "Tea Party" - but they do not speak for me! There are idiots that run for office calling themselves Tea Party - but they are not selected by the vast majority of people that self-identify as Tea Party - just like with the GOP establishment! It's not possible for any idealogy that proclaims freedom to the individual to be monolithic!
To say that the Tea Party is on it's death bed is to join the MSM and to play by their rules. When you have the full force of the IRS, the White House - and now the GOP party - against you......you have a tough fight ahead of you. The Tea Party philosophy is one of FISCAL conservatism in government! Nothing more or less!
Just like in everything that becomes successful - you have your shysters, your opportunists, stalkers, imposters and outright criminals jumping on for the ride. We do have to move up to the next phase of a burgeoning new movement - we have to start organizing and find a leader - a spokesman for us. This is the hard part, but is essential to our eventual victory.
The Socons are just as bad as the Progressives they deride - they think that Government is the answer. They are the opportunists that are trying to take over the movement and the MSM sees that and rubs their greasy hands together with glee - ah! We see a weakness we can exploit! We do have to purge these types because they are working with the enemy in that they are weakening our mission.
We're not dead. We're learning - much like a baby learns to walk - by falling and picking ourselves back up. We've got some skinned knees but we're not mortally wounded. Our mission of fiscal conservatism is sound and as things keep deteriorating, it will resonate with more and more people. We just have to keep focused on the message and not allow ourselves to be led off the path - to go look at something "shiny".
Boy, Alice!! I don't know what kind of coffee or orange juice you had this morning, but you are hitting them out of the park!! As I said another post of yours that I read earlier was so damn inspiring and uplifting, I have to say that this one is one of the most insightful and intelligent ones I have read in a long time!! Thank you, again!!
-
We need big tents... really big tents, where admission isn't set as adherence to a narrowing set of ideals.
You say you support a big tent, and yet you consistently bash social conservatives, who make up an estimated 35 percent of the GOP. I don't understand how you can support a big tent when you denigrate 35 percent of the people currently IN the tent. That just doesn't compute with me.
-
You say you support a big tent, and yet you consistently bash social conservatives, who make up an estimated 35 percent of the GOP. I don't understand how you can support a big tent when you denigrate 35 percent of the people currently IN the tent. That just doesn't compute with me.
except that (a) social conservatives do just as much bashing, and (b) social conservatives want to impose a narrow set of rigid ideals as the price of admission.
-
You say you support a big tent, and yet you consistently bash social conservatives, who make up an estimated 35 percent of the GOP. I don't understand how you can support a big tent when you denigrate 35 percent of the people currently IN the tent. That just doesn't compute with me.
Because in my experience, SoCons earnestly work at limiting access to that tent.
If you are gay you can't be in the tent.
If you are an atheist you can't be in that tent.
If you do not oppose same-sex marriage you can't be in that tent.
If you think that some sort if amnesty is going to be necessary to solve the illegal alien problem, you can't be in that tent.
In fact, in you don't elevate social issue above fiscal and political ones, you can't be in that tent.
-
except that (a) social conservatives do just as much bashing, and (b) social conservatives want to impose a narrow set of rigid ideals as the price of admission.
I don't disagree. However, the last successful GOP presidential candidate won with a plurality that included these folks. So far, I don't see any evidence that moderates can be moved to the GOP, although moderates themselves often claim if we just throw the SoCons under the bus, they'll come in droves. Well, the GOP in most of the northeast states has done just that, and where are they?
You know that I am no SoCon. But I see no reason to intentionally antagonize that faction of the party. When they propose something stupid - like public funding of churches, mandatory prayer in the schools, the teaching of creationism or a constitutional amendment banning abortion - then I will oppose those policies. But otherwise I am not going to intentionally denigrate decent, God-fearing people who are usually model citizens.
-
TBR is all about the *big tent* and I am not going to go through another election year of GOP factions here bashing each other for not seeing or adopting their POV..we all believe what we believe and TBR was created as a place where we could ALL discuss our POV's and more importantly work to over throw our common enemy...THE DEMOCRATS
-
I don't disagree. However, the last successful GOP presidential candidate won with a plurality that included these folks. So far, I don't see any evidence that moderates can be moved to the GOP, although moderates themselves often claim if we just throw the SoCons under the bus, they'll come in droves. Well, the GOP in most of the northeast states has done just that, and where are they?
You know that I am no SoCon. But I see no reason to intentionally antagonize that faction of the party. When they propose something stupid - like public funding of churches, mandatory prayer in the schools, the teaching of creationism or a constitutional amendment banning abortion - then I will oppose those policies. But otherwise I am not going to intentionally denigrate decent, God-fearing people who are usually model citizens.
The there is the sustainable theory which accredits Romney's loss to Evangelicals and the Southern Christian Right staying home in droves on Election Day.
-
TBR is all about the *big tent* and I am not going to go through another election year of GOP factions here bashing each other for not seeing or adopting their POV..we all believe what we believe and TBR was created as a place where we could ALL discuss our POV's and more importantly work to over throw our common enemy...THE DEMOCRATS
I don't see any "bashing" here. I see people hopefully working towards supporting the eventual candidates. I know I will do that.
Otherwise, this thread is a healthy discussion of the aspects of "conservatism" as it actually is today.
If I had a place like this, I would applaud those who put forth the strongest arguments, not warn them.
And for those who would support democrats, I would warn them about the original and current mission of the forum.
But that is just me.
-
The there is the sustainable theory which accredits Romney's loss to Evangelicals and the Southern Christian Right staying home in droves on Election Day.
I don't know if it is the reason he lost, but I do think a lot of evangelicals stayed home because Romney is a Mormon. To me, Romney's record was as liberal as anyone in the GOP. I would not support him until the last few weeks of the election, not because of his religion but because he is a Wall Street establishment politician. My point is, if Mitt Romney was unable to garner enough moderate votes to overcome the loss of evangelicals, then how far to the left does the party have to go to get moderates? Not just on social issues, but on fiscal issues.
For example, freedom to choose abortion is now the law of the land. Do we placate moderates who insist on government-funded abortion on demand? How about those who insist we attach welfare dependency to amnesty? How about we appeal to moderate women with universal government-funded pre-school? The fiscal arena is where these issues are being played out.
-
I don't see any "bashing" here. I see people hopefully working towards supporting the eventual candidates. I know I will do that.
Otherwise, this thread is a healthy discussion of the aspects of "conservatism" as it actually is today.
If I had a place like this, I would applaud those who put forth the strongest arguments, not warn them.
And for those who would support democrats, I would warn them about the original and current mission of the forum.
But that is just me.
Absolutely have to agree with you 100%! With a smile, I might add.
-
I don't see any "bashing" here. I see people hopefully working towards supporting the eventual candidates. I know I will do that.
Otherwise, this thread is a healthy discussion of the aspects of "conservatism" as it actually is today.
If I had a place like this, I would applaud those who put forth the strongest arguments, not warn them.
And for those who would support democrats, I would warn them about the original and current mission of the forum.
But that is just me.
I didn't say it was happening now...as an aside were you here in 2012..I can recall a lot of bashing especially towards members of the Tea Party....hopefully we don't have members here who support Dems..if that is the case they logged into the wrong forum....
-
I don't know if it is the reason he lost, but I do think a lot of evangelicals stayed home because Romney is a Mormon. To me, Romney's record was as liberal as anyone in the GOP. I would not support him until the last few weeks of the election, not because of his religion but because he is a Wall Street establishment politician. My point is, if Mitt Romney was unable to garner enough moderate votes to overcome the loss of evangelicals, then how far to the left does the party have to go to get moderates? Not just on social issues, but on fiscal issues.
For example, freedom to choose abortion is now the law of the land. Do we placate moderates who insist on government-funded abortion on demand? How about those who insist we attach welfare dependency to amnesty? How about we appeal to moderate women with universal government-funded pre-school? The fiscal arena is where these issues are being played out.
Political parties only exist to win elections. So if a political party is force to move one way or another because a portion of its membership is not supporting the Party's nominee, then the Party will move as much as it needs to move in order to win that election.
If Evangelicals can't be counted in to support the Party's nominee after the primary process has concluded, then the Party is forced to do whatever it needs to do in order to win elections.
-
Political parties only exist to win elections. So if a political party is force to move one way or another because a portion of its membership is not supporting the Party's nominee, then the Party will move as much as it needs to move in order to win that election.
If Evangelicals can't be counted in to support the Party's nominee after the primary process has concluded, then the Party is forced to do whatever it needs to do in order to win elections.
In most of the northeast states, the GOP has moved in precisely the direction you advocate, and yet the party has precious little to show for it. In fact, the Dems roll over the Republican moderates with far more ease than conservatives, precisely because they stand for nothing except expediency. Look at Scott Brown, for example. If what you say is true then we need to shift to where Elizabeth Warren is on the political spectrum, because that is where the center is in Massachusetts, and the rest of the country is getting there.
I'd rather die fighting for liberty than live winning elections that just propagate the same old big government expansionism.
-
I'd rather die fighting for liberty than live winning elections that just propagate the same old big government expansionism.
:beer: :patriot: :amen:
-
I'd rather die fighting for liberty than live winning elections that just propagate the same old big government expansionism.
Get's my vote for quote of the month!
:da man:
-
In most of the northeast states, the GOP has moved in precisely the direction you advocate, and yet the party has precious little to show for it. In fact, the Dems roll over the Republican moderates with far more ease than conservatives, precisely because they stand for nothing except expediency. Look at Scott Brown, for example. If what you say is true then we need to shift to where Elizabeth Warren is on the political spectrum, because that is where the center is in Massachusetts, and the rest of the country is getting there.
I'd rather die fighting for liberty than live winning elections that just propagate the same old big government expansionism.
There is a supposition in your post that could be the subject to an entirely new thread. We don't really know whether or not a more conservative candidates would be more successful in an ultra liberal State like Mass. That's like suggesting that someone to the left of Elizabeth Warren would be a more viable candidate for the Democrats in Mississippi.
The point is that a political Party cannot just write a State off completely.
-
I'd rather die fighting for liberty than live winning elections that just propagate the same old big government expansionism.
Government expansionism is not the sole realm of liberals.
-
Government expansionism is not the sole realm of liberals.
Luis I could be wrong but I think that is EXACTLY the point Victor was making!
-
Luis I could be wrong but I think that is EXACTLY the point Victor was making!
If all we can look forward to is expansionism from both liberals and conservatives why are we wasting out time?
We may as well all just lay down and die.
-
The premise of what the T.E.A. Party was has been lost, co-opted into near obscurity by the injection of Social Conservative ideals.
I loved the original movement's across the political spectrum's membership and their rejection of the Federal government's agenda. It felt completely "American" as opposed to conservative vs liberal.
That was refreshing, and that is now gone.
:amen:
Luis, I loved this article. It explains exactly why I became disillusioned with the Tea Party. I was very much a T.E.A. Partier in its original form - I did rallies, worked booths at community events, all of it. Our local group divided just as you said, and it's not a united group anymore. That's sad.
-
If all we can look forward to is expansionism from both liberals and conservatives why are e wasting out time?
We may as well all just lay down and die.
Liberty does not die for the simple reason that we are endowed with it by our creator. The true libertarian lives his philosophy and does not wait for government to "allow" him to live it. This is true for the immigrant who comes to this country to exercise his right to negotiate his labor, and it applies to the gun owner who keeps his guns in spite of government edicts to turn them in. Freedom is something that is maintained as a state of mind, not something conferred by government. Yes, government can take freedom away, but the true liberty lover can be free though he lives in a prison, because he knows that no jailer can bind his mind.
So, no, my friend. I will not lay down and die. I will resist. Sometimes resistance will manifest itself in electioneering, but more often it will manifest itself in how I live my life. Laying down and dying is nothing more than surrendering to the bastards.
-
There are two strong words which are rarely used.
No.
Enough.
Might be time to dust them off?
-
Liberty does not die for the simple reason that we are endowed with it by our creator. The true libertarian lives his philosophy and does not wait for government to "allow" him to live it. This is true for the immigrant who comes to this country to exercise his right to negotiate his labor, and it applies to the gun owner who keeps his guns in spite of government edicts to turn them in. Freedom is something that is maintained as a state of mind, not something conferred by government. Yes, government can take freedom away, but the true liberty lover can be free though he lives in a prison, because he knows that no jailer can bind his mind.
So, no, my friend. I will not lay down and die. I will resist. Sometimes resistance will manifest itself in electioneering, but more often it will manifest itself in how I live my life. Laying down and dying is nothing more than surrendering to the bastards.
I was responding to Bigun, and if you read his post closely, he implies that my point (expansionism isn't the sole realm of liberals) is the same point you were making in your post.
If that's true, if government expansionism is the outcome of both liberal and conservatives in government, then what exactly is it that makes liberals and conservatives different, and why are bothering to vote at all?
-
:amen:
Luis, I loved this article. It explains exactly why I became disillusioned with the Tea Party. I was very much a T.E.A. Partier in its original form - I did rallies, worked booths at community events, all of it. Our local group divided just as you said, and it's not a united group anymore. That's sad.
Thanks.
-
If that's true, if government expansionism is the outcome of both liberal and conservatives in government, then what exactly is it that makes liberals and conservatives different, and why are bothering to vote at all?
I have been asking myself that question since the GHWB administration. I still vote, but I haven't cast a presidential ballot I've been satisfied with for over 30 years. Meanwhile, the moderates get to cast satisfying (albeit usually losing) votes cycle after cycle. And you say we aren't moderate enough! Well, I can't think of a national GOP figure with a more liberal record than Mitt Romney. If he isn't moderate enough, what must we do? Recruit Howard Dean into the party and vote for him? And when we do, and we finally win, what will we have won, exactly?
-
TBR is all about the *big tent* and I am not going to go through another election year of GOP factions here bashing each other for not seeing or adopting their POV..we all believe what we believe and TBR was created as a place where we could ALL discuss our POV's and more importantly work to over throw our common enemy...THE DEMOCRATS
Just as the nation's Founders agreed that the contentious issues faced by the nation should be all worked out in the laboratory of the States (bloody ones when it came to slavery), contentious interparty issues should be worked out in the laboratory of forums and debate halls (places where politics used to be argued before Al Gore invented the Internet).
It is imperative that we work through all our differences here, before the battle (as it were) is joined.
My personal goal is to incite intelligent debate among friends. It is not to act as an agent provocateur, or an agitator.
My ideas on government an politics in general are impacted every single day by posts I read here and other places, and I shift my stances as I experience paradigm shifts as a result of being exposed to a point of view that I may have not given thought to before. Understanding why those who disagree with you disagree with you is perhaps the greatest bit of political understanding that anyone could ever gain.
That (to me) is a GOOD thing. I can't be so rigid that I will break as a result of resistance to learning things, or even changing.
Politics and political ideology to me is a journey where the destination is the journey itself.
-
...and more importantly work to over throw our common enemy...THE DEMOCRATS
The the left/right 'battle' is the creation of the international banking families... who are the enemy of all mankind...
-
I have been asking myself that question since the GHWB administration. I still vote, but I haven't cast a presidential ballot I've been satisfied with for over 30 years. Meanwhile, the moderates get to cast satisfying (albeit usually losing) votes cycle after cycle. And you say we aren't moderate enough! Well, I can't think of a national GOP figure with a more liberal record than Mitt Romney. If he isn't moderate enough, what must we do? Recruit Howard Dean into the party and vote for him? And when we do, and we finally win, what will we have won, exactly?
I had never seen a more timely candidate than Mitt Romney this past election cycle.
A tried and true capitalist with real-world experience on the business of running the business that is this nation. The man was nearly God-sent in my eyes.
We have a very real, very explosive financial crisis in this nation, and we rejected Mitt Romney as a liberal.
He was rejected by a great portion of the traditional GOP vote based on his stance on social issues, and his religion.
I know few groups of people more socially conservative than Mormons.
I don't know that anything can be "done" to reverse where our society is today, but a great number of "our side" insists on supporting candidates according to their stances on issues that they can do absolutely nothing about.
-
The the left/right 'battle' is the creation of the international banking families... who are the enemy of all mankind...
Okay then name these "international banking families."
-
If all we can look forward to is expansionism from both liberals and conservatives why are we wasting out time?
We may as well all just lay down and die.
Are you telling me that you do not believe that both Democrats and Republicans have expanded government greatly over the last 100 years or so?
If so you are entirely mistaken because they have and that is a historical FACT!
-
Are you telling me that you do not believe that both Democrats and Republicans have expanded government greatly over the last 100 years or so?
If so you are entirely mistaken because they have and that is a historical FACT!
That's slick. You all do that all the time.
When it's time to slam the GOP as a bunch of "RINOs", you all draw a line of distinction between "conservatives" and Republicans.
But when I point out that conservatives are as guilty as liberals of expanding the government, suddenly you want to discuss Republicans.
Don't shift the subject back to Republicans when it's suitable.
-
2009 was eons away politically, and what you joined up for no longer exists as it did when you signed up.
Bingo Luis. Dead-nuts-on-target. When the TEA Party arrived, it was borne of fiscal conservatism. And, I loved it! It has grossly morphed since then due largely to the SOCONs, but others have had a hand in it as well. It then merged with the vague and nebulous concept of convenience, RINO - and then equally vague and nebulous judgments and litmus tests were rolled out. Strident and unbending voices of nobility and purpose finished the bastardization of the TEA Party.
-
That's slick. You all do that all the time.
When it's time to slam the GOP as a bunch of "RINOs", you all draw a line of distinction between "conservatives" and Republicans.
But when I point out that conservatives are as guilty as liberals of expanding the government, suddenly you want to discuss Republicans.
Don't shift the subject back to Republicans when it's suitable.
Please explain to me how this If all we can look forward to is expansionism from both liberals and conservatives why are we wasting out time?
We may as well all just lay down and die.
is pointing out that conservatives are as guilty as liberals of expanding government.
And they are not! Liberals, progressives, or whatever they choose to call themselves this week, both major parties (Democrat and Republican), are responsible for expanding government! Conservatives had nothing to do with it!
-
There are two strong words which are rarely used.
No.
Enough.
Might be time to dust them off?
Wow... a national campaign could be developed from simply those two words. Well done.
-
TBR is all about the *big tent* and I am not going to go through another election year of GOP factions here bashing each other for not seeing or adopting their POV..we all believe what we believe and TBR was created as a place where we could ALL discuss our POV's and more importantly work to over throw our common enemy...THE DEMOCRATS
Myst... it could be enough to make me take a long sabbatical. I have been battling stress and me crossing sabers with other members or witnessing others do it over nonsense just wouldn't be worthwhile to me.
I will say it again.
The Republicans can nominate a yellow dog and it has my vote. Not because I necessarily agree with what the Republicans stand for, but I abhor what the Democrats stand for. Simple. They must be defeated. We must win. Then we go to work fixing stuff. It will be generational work, but that is the only way.
-
BTW... to my friend Luis. Thank you for yet another fine composition. You have contributed mightily of late. Thank you.
-
The Republicans can nominate a yellow dog and it has my vote. Not because I necessarily agree with what the Republicans stand for, but I abhor what the Democrats stand for. Simple. They must be defeated. We must win. Then we go to work fixing stuff. It will be generational work, but that is the only way.
Couldn't agree more Lando..
-
Couldn't agree more Lando..
You see, I still have remnants of faith in the process. I want to rip the voice of the left from the process. I have no illusions that all Republicans are faithful to my ideal, but I know that if we can stifle the strident idealism of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and the Obama - we have a chance. Not a good one because of the hole we are in, but we have a chance. Too many things in our system are automatic and that is a challenge. But, Good Lord! To the Left, all things good and traditional, all things productive, and all who are willing to sacrifice for the common good are... bad. We are distorted, upside down and twisted. White privilege, Wall Street, industry, hetero-whatever, faithful, religious and God-loving, strong, traditional family, service, respectful of military... these are all mocked and impugned by some element of the left. And I am to vote to give them a voice because of some noble standard I hold the... other guy to?? You gotta be kidding me.
Rip the voice from the left. They will never stop, never quit. I shall not give them my meager support in any way.
Simple.
-
You see, I still have remnants of faith in the process. I want to rip the voice of the left from the process. I have no illusions that all Republicans are faithful to my ideal, but I know that if we can stifle the strident idealism of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and the Obama - we have a chance. Not a good one because of the hole we are in, but we have a chance. Too many things in our system are automatic and that is a challenge. But, Good Lord! To the Left, all things good and traditional, all things productive, and all who are willing to sacrifice for the common good are... bad. We are distorted, upside down and twisted. White privilege, Wall Street, industry, hetero-whatever, faithful, religious and God-loving, strong, traditional family, service, respectful of military... these are all mocked and impugned by some element of the left. And I am to vote to give them a voice because of some noble standard I hold the... other guy to?? You gotta be kidding me.
Rip the voice from the left. They will never stop, never quit. I shall not give them my meager support in any way.
Simple.
Outstanding Lando. You have spoken for many of us. :patriot:
-
Outstanding Lando. You have spoken for many of us. :patriot:
:patriot: Damn it Mac... we can distort our thinking, can't we?
-
There are two strong words which are rarely used.
No.
Enough.
Might be time to dust them off?
:amen: Brother! :amen:
:beer:
-
Please explain to me how this is pointing out that conservatives are as guilty as liberals of expanding government.
And they are not! Liberals, progressives, or whatever they choose to call themselves this week, both major parties (Democrat and Republican), are responsible for expanding government! Conservatives had nothing to do with it!
Conservatives are every bit as willing to expand government to implement their agenda, as liberals, progressives, Republicans and Democrats are.
If you wish to think in white hat/black hat terms in the struggle for power that is politics, you are sadly naive.
-
Conservatives are every bit as willing to expand government to implement their agenda, as liberals, progressives, Republicans and Democrats are.
If you wish to think in white hat/black hat terms in the struggle for power that is politics, you are sadly naive.
Someone sure as hell is but I don't think it's me!
-
Bingo Luis. Dead-nuts-on-target. When the TEA Party arrived, it was borne of fiscal conservatism. And, I loved it! It has grossly morphed since then due largely to the SOCONs, but others have had a hand in it as well. It then merged with the vague and nebulous concept of convenience, RINO - and then equally vague and nebulous judgments and litmus tests were rolled out. Strident and unbending voices of nobility and purpose finished the bastardization of the TEA Party.
Faith and patriotism are two incredible sources of income Lando. Ask any preacher or politician.
Both of them will shout "God!" and "Country!" from soapboxes and pulpits as the collections basket navigates the congregations, because they know that because of the emotions those words generate the very least among us will reach just a little deeper into our thinning purses, for God and country.
Politics today has become the art of motivating one set of people into handing you riches and power by pointing out how bad the other side is.
They, all of them, do that because we have reached a point where solutions to our problems are no longer viable without catastrophic consequences, and pointing out how bad the other guy is is easier than actually trying to fix or mend anything at all.
-
You see, I still have remnants of faith in the process. I want to rip the voice of the left from the process. I have no illusions that all Republicans are faithful to my ideal, but I know that if we can stifle the strident idealism of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and the Obama - we have a chance. Not a good one because of the hole we are in, but we have a chance. Too many things in our system are automatic and that is a challenge. But, Good Lord! To the Left, all things good and traditional, all things productive, and all who are willing to sacrifice for the common good are... bad. We are distorted, upside down and twisted. White privilege, Wall Street, industry, hetero-whatever, faithful, religious and God-loving, strong, traditional family, service, respectful of military... these are all mocked and impugned by some element of the left. And I am to vote to give them a voice because of some noble standard I hold the... other guy to?? You gotta be kidding me.
Rip the voice from the left. They will never stop, never quit. I shall not give them my meager support in any way.
Simple.
Nice.
Nice.
Well said.
-
Th left has long used emotion to appeal to their loyal voters. That's easier than using logic and fact based arguments. And the response is faster and more intense than you can get by reasoned discussion.
It's always been hard for the GOP to counteract emotion with logic. Now I think there are some on the conservative side who are using emotion based arguments. I suppose those might be more appealing to undecided voters than logic and fact based arguments. They don't do anything for me, but this year I think the most important thing is a huge GOP win in Nov., and I don't care how we get it.
I do think we have to try to get back to discussion and reason, and maybe even - horrors! - compromise when we disagree on an issue. But for now I'll settle for GOP power.
-
You see, I still have remnants of faith in the process. I want to rip the voice of the left from the process. I have no illusions that all Republicans are faithful to my ideal, but I know that if we can stifle the strident idealism of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and the Obama - we have a chance. Not a good one because of the hole we are in, but we have a chance. Too many things in our system are automatic and that is a challenge. But, Good Lord! To the Left, all things good and traditional, all things productive, and all who are willing to sacrifice for the common good are... bad. We are distorted, upside down and twisted. White privilege, Wall Street, industry, hetero-whatever, faithful, religious and God-loving, strong, traditional family, service, respectful of military... these are all mocked and impugned by some element of the left. And I am to vote to give them a voice because of some noble standard I hold the... other guy to?? You gotta be kidding me.
Rip the voice from the left. They will never stop, never quit. I shall not give them my meager support in any way.
Simple.
The voice of the Left (from Facebook):
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5540/14241422175_6305572470.jpg) (https://www.flickr.com/photos/105575503@N07/14241422175/)
Idealism is the left's stock in trade and Republicans/conservatives with their logic and facts are standing in the way of their utopia.
It's in the DNA, this high-mindedness of theirs. Just as it's in our DNA to move in the real world – not in leftist platitudes, secured by the Founders grand intention for a workable society.
This tension between right and left is the Yin Yang in the body politic that will always be with us.
-
1. I want people in Hell to get glasses of ice water.
2. Didn't care too much for Lolita during my "counter-culture" book phase of a quarter century ago. Not "Lolita", not "On The Road", not "Catcher In The Rye". "Naked Lunch" was interesting but I don't remember if I read it or watched the movie first.
Your comparison was quite good though.
3. The Leftist plan to expand is based upon building dependence, then using that power to control those who are dependent. You think they will be using EBT cards to buy beer, Cheetos and TVs in 20 years? Maybe lentils and kale.
Far as the Right goes, how long before all home schools are required to follow a single curriculum? More power to the police and other failed law and order complex?
4. The So-Cons are the LEAST dependable voting bloc. If the proper overtures are made, I'm betting there are more libertarian/own mind types than Religious Right types. The ones who take their ball and sulk if they don't get their own way. We've seen it time and again.
5. I would rather have a smaller tent with dependable voters than a large tent filled with people ready to bolt at the slightest slight.
Thanks
-
Someone sure as hell is but I don't think it's me!
Bush (the guy you and I agreed was the most conservative choice in the 2000 and 2004 elections) increased spending and expanded government with his No Child Left Behind program, his Medicare Part D program. He bailed out Wall Street and the auto industry. In 2001 there were 64,000+ pages of regulations added to the Federal Registry, and another 78,000 were added in 2007.
Bush created the Department of Homeland Security and set the TSA to screen old ladies for fingernail clippers and bottled water.
Conservatives championed the blatantly unconstitutional Federal Defense of Marriage Act and have consistently supported as much pork and corporate welfare as the Democrats. Reagan's Payment-in-Kind program is a perfect example of big agriculture corporate welfare from big government.
Bailouts:
1971 - Nixon bails out Lockheed
1974 - Nixon/Ford bails out the Franklin National Bank
1984 - Reagan assumes 80% share of Continental Illinois National Bank and Trust Co, then sells it off at a loss off $1.1 billion
1989 - Bush the Elder bails out the S&L industry
So yes, conservatives are guilty of government expansionism. Certainly Reagan and Bush II were conservative Presidents by anyone's standard and it was conservatives who drafted and enacted the Federal DoMA, then deemed it a conservative victory.
You can argue (with no retort from me) that liberals expand government to a greater degree than conservatives, but what you CAN'T argue is that conservatives do not expand government themselves.
Unless of course, you opt to use the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.
-
3. The Leftist plan to expand is based upon building dependence, then using that power to control those who are dependent. You think they will be using EBT cards to buy beer, Cheetos and TVs in 20 years? Maybe lentils and kale.
Far as the Right goes, how long before all home schools are required to follow a single curriculum? More power to the police and other failed law and order complex?
Amazingly enough, that's the classic crack dealer marketing scheme.
They give crack away to new users to get them hooked and turn them into customers for life.
-
Bush (the guy you and I agreed was the most conservative choice in the 2000 and 2004 elections) increased spending and expanded government with his No Child Left Behind program, his Medicare Part D program. He bailed out Wall Street and the auto industry. In 2001 there were 64,000+ pages of regulations added to the Federal Registry, and another 78,000 were added in 2007.
Bush created the Department of Homeland Security and set the TSA to screen old ladies for fingernail clippers and bottled water.
Conservatives championed the blatantly unconstitutional Federal Defense of Marriage Act and have consistently supported as much pork and corporate welfare as the Democrats. Reagan's Payment-in-Kind program is a perfect example of big agriculture corporate welfare from big government.
Bailouts:
1971 - Nixon bails out Lockheed
1974 - Nixon/Ford bails out the Franklin National Bank
1984 - Reagan assumes 80% share of Continental Illinois National Bank and Trust Co, then sells it off at a loss off $1.1 billion
1989 - Bush the Elder bails out the S&L industry
So yes, conservatives are guilty of government expansionism. Certainly Reagan and Bush II were conservative Presidents by anyone's standard and it was conservatives who drafted and enacted the Federal DoMA, then deemed it a conservative victory.
You can argue (with no retort from me) that liberals expand government to a greater degree than conservatives, but what you CAN'T argue is that conservatives do not expand government themselves.
Unless of course, you opt to use the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.
Yeah! I know!
The last president to actually CUT government spending - not just reduce the rate of spending growth - was Calvin Coolidge!
And there were Conservatives fighting like hell against everything on your list! There were ZERO Liberals/progressives fighting against ANY of it!
-
Yeah! I know!
The last president to actually CUT government spending - not just reduce the rate of spending growth - was Calvin Coolidge!
And there were Conservatives fighting like hell against everything on your list! There were ZERO Liberals/progressives fighting against ANY of it!
No True Scotsman.
There were NO conservatives fighting against the Federal DoMA.
None.
Zero.
Not a one.
-
And WHAT pray tell do you find so very expansive in that act?
I STILL support it!
-
I would rather have a smaller tent with dependable voters than a large tent filled with people ready to bolt at the slightest slight.
Unfortunately the size and makeup of the tent is directly related to election victories. Reagan Democrats weren't the core of the GOP. Both parties understand all to well that the indifferent voter is one of the keys to victory. You might pick him up with specific issues, weariness with the current leadership, or some likeable style of the challenger.
If addressed in a reasonable and knowledgeable manner, todays issues should favor the Republican candidates. But it's the "I don't vote party; I vote for the candidate" crowd that has to be gathered.
-
And WHAT pray tell do you find so very expansive in that act?
Rule #1 of non-expansionism:
The Federal government only has those powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution.
The Federal Defense of Marriage Act
Section 3
"... the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."
Where does the Constitution give the Federal government the power to define marriage for ANY purpose?
Please show me the exact Article and Section where that power is enumerated.
Rule #1 of conservatism:
The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land.
Constitution of the United States of America
Article IV
Section 1
Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.
The Federal Defense of Marriage Act
Section 2
No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.
Where does the Constitution give Congress the power to legislate a wholesale exemption to the Constitution?
Please show me the exact Article and Section where that power is enumerated.
The Act is expansive in the fact that it usurped traditional State's rights to define what constitutes a marriage by defining the institution at the Federal level. Limiting the Federal government to those powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution protects the concepts of Federalism and State Sovereignty set in place by the Founders via the Constitution.
BTW, it absolutely ridiculous to maintain that there were any number of conservatives opposing passage of the Federal DoMA, and no liberals opposing it, which is what you said in your usual unsupported blanket statement. You're entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.
The only Republican member of Congress who voted against the DoMA was Log Cabin Republican Steve Gunderson. Democrats cast 79 votes against the bill with 15 abstentions.
I STILL support it!
Thanks for proving my point for me.
-
Where does the Constitution give Congress the power to legislate a wholesale exemption to the Constitution?
I think the DOMA clause was unnecessary, since states already have a public policy exemption. And the FF&C clause was written primarily for judgments rather than legislation. Until the USSC invoked the 14th amendment, interracial marriages which were legal in most states were not allowed or recognized in some. States frequently do not recognize licenses issued by other states, requiring their own standards not the issuing state.
At some point, the SCOTUS may well find that bans on either the issuance of gay marriage licenses or the recognition by other states violates the 14th Amendment. Only then will the issue be settled.
Next will come other types of marriages, such as between father and daughter, underage, multiple spouses, etc. What California legalizes may not be recognized in South Carolina.
-
I think the DOMA clause was unnecessary, since states already have a public policy exemption. And the FF&C clause was written primarily for judgments rather than legislation. Until the USSC invoked the 14th amendment, interracial marriages which were legal in most states were not allowed or recognized in some. States frequently do not recognize licenses issued by other states, requiring their own standards not the issuing state.
At some point, the SCOTUS may well find that bans on either the issuance of gay marriage licenses or the recognition by other states violates the 14th Amendment. Only then will the issue be settled.
Next will come other types of marriages, such as between father and daughter, underage, multiple spouses, etc. What California legalizes may not be recognized in South Carolina.
A marriage, certainly the licensing and recording aspect of it, falls under the "public records" verbiage of the FF&C Clause.
There is quite a bit of case law addressing how marriages that may be legal in one State will be handled in States where they are not. The full text of the FF&C assigns to Congress the task to figure out the manner in which those acts will be handled, but grants it no power to create wholesale exemptions.
Insofar as the slippery slope argument goes, that ship sailed the day that Protestants opted to walk away from marriage as an unbreakable sacrament.
-
Insofar as the slippery slope argument goes, that ship sailed the day that Protestants opted to walk away from marriage as an unbreakable sacrament.
Durned Protestants...
-
A marriage, certainly the licensing and recording aspect of it, falls under the "public records" verbiage of the FF&C Clause.
There is quite a bit of case law addressing how marriages that may be legal in one State will be handled in States where they are not. The full text of the FF&C assigns to Congress the task to figure out the manner in which those acts will be handled, but grants it no power to create wholesale exemptions.
Insofar as the slippery slope argument goes, that ship sailed the day that Protestants opted to walk away from marriage as an unbreakable sacrament.
While I agree that DOMA is likely to be overturned as to language, it won't necessarily follow the logic that was used to overturn Section 3 last year. And wholesale exemptions are what federalism is all about. As to public records, that would mean any license issued by a state must be recognized by all other states, and of course that's not true. So I don't think it's as clear cut as the proponents of same-sex marriage want it to be. It took until 1967 for the ban on issuance or recognition of interracial marriages in states to be overturned.
As for the slippery slope argument, like it or not, it's there. The public policy exemption, if it didn't exist, would basically toss out the 10th Amendment. And it's only when usage of the exemption violates either the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendments, does it come within the jurisdiction of the federal courts.
It's not out of the question that polygamy may one day be allowed in a liberal state. If so, I doubt most other states would accept that document should the group elect to move. Utah can't because it's unconstitutional in that state.
-
While I agree that DOMA is likely to be overturned as to language, it won't necessarily follow the logic that was used to overturn Section 3 last year. And wholesale exemptions are what federalism is all about. As to public records, that would mean any license issued by a state must be recognized by all other states, and of course that's not true. So I don't think it's as clear cut as the proponents of same-sex marriage want it to be. It took until 1967 for the ban on issuance or recognition of interracial marriages in states to be overturned.
As for the slippery slope argument, like it or not, it's there. The public policy exemption, if it didn't exist, would basically toss out the 10th Amendment. And it's only when usage of the exemption violates either the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendments, does it come within the jurisdiction of the federal courts.
It's not out of the question that polygamy may one day be allowed in a liberal state. If so, I doubt most other states would accept that document should the group elect to move. Utah can't because it's unconstitutional in that state.
Legislative wholesale exemptions to Constitutional clauses is what Federalism is all about.
That's a novel concept.
So it is your opinion that Congress could write a law saying that a getting a divorce in one State doesn't necessarily mean that you are divorced in every State?
Good news for lawyers.
-
As to public records, that would mean any license issued by a state must be recognized by all other states, and of course that's not true.
How many driver's licenses do you own?
How many auto tags are hanging from your bumper?
The company that I work for is licensed and incorporated as a Florida company, but we do business all over the US based on that corporate charter and that business license.
My previous marriage was dissolved in Florida, but (last I checked) I'm divorced everywhere.
-
Legislative wholesale exemptions to Constitutional clauses is what Federalism is all about.
That's a novel concept.
So it is your opinion that Congress could write a law saying that a getting a divorce in one State doesn't necessarily mean that you are divorced in every State?
Good news for lawyers.
I don't know that divorce has ever been an issue involving the public policy exemption. So I guess we don't really know the answer.
-
It's in the DNA, this high-mindedness of theirs. Just as it's in our DNA to move in the real world – not in leftist platitudes, secured by the Founders grand intention for a workable society.
This tension between right and left is the Yin Yang in the body politic that will always be with us.
The art is to be empathetic with the left's concerns, but skeptical of their methods, and to warn they rarely reach the goals. Most of the time they build huge costly bureaucracies requiring money permanently, without making a dent in the original problem.
The best example is lifetime welfare.
-
How many driver's licenses do you own?
How many auto tags are hanging from your bumper?
The company that I work for is licensed and incorporated as a Florida company, but we do business all over the US based on that corporate charter and that business license.
My previous marriage was dissolved in Florida, but (last I checked) I'm divorced everywhere.
If you move into another state, you will have to get their driver's license and comply with their licensing laws. Moving though a state has never been an issue, and gays who are married AFAIK, can freely move through states that have gay marriage bans. Doesn't mean the state will recognize the marriage for whatever benefits might otherwise accrue in that state.
Reciprocity isn't a constitutional right, nor is it mandated for most state laws. The courts look at each challenge, and will usually make a decision based on 5th or 14th Amendment rights that all Americans have (due process and equal treatment). I believe there has been at least one lower court ruling on gay marriage reciprocity. But considering the DOMA decision last year was a 5-4 decision, it will no doubt be a heck of a rumble.
-
Rule #1 of non-expansionism:
The Federal government only has those powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution.
The Federal Defense of Marriage Act
Section 3
"... the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."
Where does the Constitution give the Federal government the power to define marriage for ANY purpose?
Please show me the exact Article and Section where that power is enumerated.
Rule #1 of conservatism:
The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land.
Constitution of the United States of America
Article IV
Section 1
Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.
The Federal Defense of Marriage Act
Section 2
No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.
Where does the Constitution give Congress the power to legislate a wholesale exemption to the Constitution?
Please show me the exact Article and Section where that power is enumerated.
The Act is expansive in the fact that it usurped traditional State's rights to define what constitutes a marriage by defining the institution at the Federal level. Limiting the Federal government to those powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution protects the concepts of Federalism and State Sovereignty set in place by the Founders via the Constitution.
BTW, it absolutely ridiculous to maintain that there were any number of conservatives opposing passage of the Federal DoMA, and no liberals opposing it, which is what you said in your usual unsupported blanket statement. You're entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.
The only Republican member of Congress who voted against the DoMA was Log Cabin Republican Steve Gunderson. Democrats cast 79 votes against the bill with 15 abstentions.
Thanks for proving my point for me.
I've been very busy today and thus late getting back to a discussion which has largely passed me by but I will make you a deal Luis.
Given the fact that as far as I know , the federal government does not issue marriage licenses I will give up my support for DOMA at the same time we do away with every other part of the federal government not specifically authorized by the Constitution. In the mean time please know that I do NOT subscribe to the line of thinking you are espousing here. Defining the meaning of certain words in law - in this case marriage - does NOT constitute an expansion of the federal government!
-
If you move into another state, you will have to get their driver's license and comply with their licensing laws. Moving though a state has never been an issue, and gays who are married AFAIK, can freely move through states that have gay marriage bans. Doesn't mean the state will recognize the marriage for whatever benefits might otherwise accrue in that state.
Reciprocity isn't a constitutional right, nor is it mandated for most state laws. The courts look at each challenge, and will usually make a decision based on 5th or 14th Amendment rights that all Americans have (due process and equal treatment). I believe there has been at least one lower court ruling on gay marriage reciprocity. But considering the DOMA decision last year was a 5-4 decision, it will no doubt be a heck of a rumble.
But I won't have (in most cases) to retake the driving exam, etc. The change in license and tag is for taxation and change of address purposes, so my ability to drive is transferred from one State to the other without any need for me to meet further requirements.
I believe that at the end of the day (I detest that saying), anti same-sex marriage laws will go the way of anti-miscegenation laws.
I get the clue from Darling:
"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man.'"
-
I've been very busy today and thus late getting back to a discussion which has largely passed me by but I will make you a deal Luis.
Given the fact that as far as I know , the federal government does not issue marriage licenses I will give up my support for DOMA at the same time we do away with every other part of the federal government not specifically authorized by the Constitution. In the mean time please know that I do NOT subscribe to the line of thinking you are espousing here. Defining the meaning of certain words in law - in this case marriage - does NOT constitute an expansion of the federal government!
Given that my original point was that conservatives are every bit as willing to violate the Constitution as all other political groups, your post bring the conversation around full circle.
Thanks for proving my point.
-
But I won't have (in most cases) to retake the driving exam, etc. The change in license and tag is for taxation and change of address purposes, so my ability to drive is transferred from one State to the other without any need for me to meet further requirements.
I believe that at the end of the day (I detest that saying), anti same-sex marriage laws will go the way of anti-miscegenation laws.
I get the clue from Darling:
"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man.'"
Not sure how South Carolina works it now, but when I moved here I had to take their written test. I think most states have certain reciprocities based on agreements worked out rather than due to any constitutional issues, at least with state laws. Compacts are entered into all the time. Also other licenses such as medical, attorney, CPA etc aren't necessarily reciprocal.
But I do agree that ultimately, the USSC will change its position on Baker v Nelson, due more to a change in social attitudes in the Country rather than any epiphany, and it will likely be up to Kennedy.
Another time perhaps to discuss the (IMHO) differences between Loving v Virginia and gay marriage as a 14th Amendment issue.
-
I don't disagree. However, the last successful GOP presidential candidate won with a plurality that included these folks. So far, I don't see any evidence that moderates can be moved to the GOP, although moderates themselves often claim if we just throw the SoCons under the bus, they'll come in droves. Well, the GOP in most of the northeast states has done just that, and where are they?
You know that I am no SoCon. But I see no reason to intentionally antagonize that faction of the party. When they propose something stupid - like public funding of churches, mandatory prayer in the schools, the teaching of creationism or a constitutional amendment banning abortion - then I will oppose those policies. But otherwise I am not going to intentionally denigrate decent, God-fearing people who are usually model citizens.
What I hate, what I detest, what I am fed to the teeth with, is the demonization that both sides of the party have heaped on each other. Sorry, but the SoCons are as guilty of this vice as are the e-GOPers (an ugly term, but why stop being ugly now). The level of personal hatred seeping into both the SoCons and e-GOPers for each other is disgusting and the only people it benefits are the democrats because not only does it weaken us directly, it gives them plenty of ammunition to use on us.
There is, honestly, only one real difference I've noticed twixt the two: the SoCons have a degree of self-satisfied sanctimony that I find repulsive. That's not to say the e-GOPers aren't sanctimonious, but the SoCons have pretty much cornered the market on that one.
-
Given that my original point was that conservatives are every bit as willing to violate the Constitution as all other political groups, your post bring the conversation around full circle.
Thanks for proving my point.
Uh Huh! RIGHT!!!
-
TeaParty.org - TeaParty.schmorgasbord
Never been there - don't ever plan to go there. They are just an organization that is trying to BE the tea party, I guess. There is no official Tea PARTY. No official Tea Party WEBSITE. No ballot that has the Tea Party listed on it. No national Tea Party convention - only a bunch of groups trying to establish themselves as the establishment. It's a necessary process, hopefully the fiscal conservative ideology will win the day.
The website. Is that all you got out of my answer?
How do you have a national office for a grassroots movement?
En masse, call it what you will, but TEA party groups are, of necessity local, where the rubber meets the road.
-
Without social conservatives you have the Pedophile Party
Good luck!
-
Without social conservatives you have the Pedophile Party
Good luck!
So there is no moral ground between social conservatives and pedophiles? You are either one or the other?