The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: Machiavelli on October 22, 2014, 11:51:55 pm
-
Colin Campbell
Business Insider
October 22, 2014
Billionaire investor Mark Cuban has some advice for the Republican Party: Drop the social issues.
"If I was going to give guidance to the Republican Party ... I'd say, 'Stay completely out of social issues,'" Cuban said Tuesday morning on CNBC's "Squawk Box."
More (http://www.businessinsider.com/mark-cuban-republicans-social-issues-2014-10)
Rush Limbaugh: Mark Cuban's Advice for the GOP (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2014/10/22/mark_cuban_s_advice_for_the_gop)
-
I encourage folks to read the transcript at the link.
I don't think Rush agrees with the "screw the SoCons" approach.
-
I don't think Rush agrees with the "screw the SoCons" approach.
Well, Rush does have a lot of SoCon in him. :laugh:
-
Well, Rush does have a lot of SoCon in him. :laugh:
Indeed he does. Thing is, the SoCons are quite willing to say, "Screw the GOP." Not sure the GOP can win without them. A conundrum, eh?
-
The SoCons need to understand their interests have a seat at a Republican table, but none at a democrat table.
At a Republican table they don't get to sit at the head, and decide the entire seating chart, agenda, etc.
Example: Just 22% believe abortion should be illegal even for rape victims. Yet the SoCons now push their "personhood" paradigm.
Angle, Buck, O'Donnell, Akins, Mourdoch, Miller, Cuccinelli, just some examples of the "no abortion for rape" advocacy candidate group. What they have in common is losing winnable elections.
-
The SoCons need to understand their interests have a seat at a Republican table, but none at a democrat table.
At a Republican table they don't get to sit at the head, and decide the entire seating chart, agenda, etc.
Example: Just 22% believe abortion should be illegal even for rape victims. Yet the SoCons now push their "personhood" paradigm.
Angle, Buck, O'Donnell, Akins, Mourdoch, Miller, Cuccinelli, just some examples of the "no abortion for rape" advocacy candidate group. What they have in common is losing winnable elections.
Where else are they going to go, right?
-
Where else are they going to go, right?
The SoCons are more interested in defeating RINOs than they are in winning small battles. All or nothing is their mantra.
-
The SoCons are more interested in defeating RINOs than they are in winning small battles. All or nothing is their mantra.
They're big on conscience, and they voted their consciences. Then screw 'em. That'll teach 'em good.
-
The SoCons are more interested in defeating RINOs than they are in winning small battles. All or nothing is their mantra.
They're big on conscience, and they voted their consciences. Then screw 'em. That'll teach 'em good.
They don't care if their actions help elect Democrats. They ignore reality and plunge stubbornly ahead, putting their egos above the welfare of the country.
-
They don't care if their actions help elect Democrats. They ignore reality and plunge stubbornly ahead, putting their egos above the welfare of the country.
Mark Cuban is a self-made man who created his own wealth in a way that advanced our tech culture in a dramatic manner.
He WANTS to be a Republican.
He AGREES with the Tea Party GOP on taxes.
Social conservatives are the one group of the GOP that are killing this party. The war against "homos" has been lost, and at this point, I think the far right religious folk would listen to Jesus and let God decide who goes to Heaven or Hell. :amen:
-
Carling wrote:
[[ Social conservatives are the one group of the GOP that are killing this party...]]
Cutting out "the social issues" from the Republican party would be tantamount to removing the heart and lungs from a person and still expect that person to be healthy.
It's not "the economic issues" that form the basis of conservatism -- it's the social and cultural issues that constitute that foundation. Get the culture correct, and good economics follows along naturally.
It is most certainly the "social and cultural" issues of the left that define them. And the other side is smart enough to understand that as they wage (thank P.J. Buchanan for the term) a "culture war" on traditional America.
Lemme make a comparison here, using the great conflict between The West and islam.
I'd be the first to say that The West doesn't have a chance of winning this struggle, until it is willing to face the reality of what "the enemy" really is. Only then, and only with that understanding will a course to victory become clear, recognizable, attainable.
So it goes with the culture war we have on our own soil.
Until the Republican party is willing to see what that "enemy" is -- a cultural one (again, the left knows what it is fighting for) -- and until they're willing to engage on proper terms -- they'll keep right on losing ground. Even while they win a majority in both houses of Congress.
How can the Republicans win the struggle, when they can't even recognize what the fight is about?
-
Start making a list to make Obama's legislative agenda miserable.
-
Where else are they going to go, right?
Home. We have no "seat at the GOP table". We're merely the 'staff'. Called upon to serve the dinner, and treated with anything from condescension to contempt. Our 'betters' keep telling us we have to abandon our principles for 'pragmatism', to attract this voting bloc, that group, those guys. Our money is welcome, our work is expected, our vote is demanded, but our concerns must be ignored, because the GOP can't win with them. Except they don't. This voting bloc, that group, those guys never show up [except for Reagan, who espoused fiscal, defense AND social issues that drew the blue collar Dems in droves]. You trot out Bob "It's My Turn" Dole, John McCain, Mitt Romney. And you lose. And somehow, it's OUR fault. So here's the deal. We won't drag you down with our issues. Or our votes. Because to us, moderate Pubbies are merely well dressed Democrats. And that'll give you all those moderates and Independents who've held back from voting for you because of us. And then we'll see.
-
Home. We have no "seat at the GOP table". We're merely the 'staff'. Called upon to serve the dinner, and treated with anything from condescension to contempt. Our 'betters' keep telling us we have to abandon our principles for 'pragmatism', to attract this voting bloc, that group, those guys. Our money is welcome, our work is expected, our vote is demanded, but our concerns must be ignored, because the GOP can't win with them. Except they don't. This voting bloc, that group, those guys never show up [except for Reagan, who espoused fiscal, defense AND social issues that drew the blue collar Dems in droves]. You trot out Bob "It's My Turn" Dole, John McCain, Mitt Romney. And you lose. And somehow, it's OUR fault. So here's the deal. We won't drag you down with our issues. Or our votes. Because to us, moderate Pubbies are merely well dressed Democrats. And that'll give you all those moderates and Independents who've held back from voting for you because of us. And then we'll see.
I have won several awards for raising money for the RNC. If you can't beat them,join them.The person at my table was Edwin Meese, Very shy and quiet . Talked about his years with the Reagan Administration.
-
Home. We have no "seat at the GOP table". We're merely the 'staff'. Called upon to serve the dinner, and treated with anything from condescension to contempt. Our 'betters' keep telling us we have to abandon our principles for 'pragmatism', to attract this voting bloc, that group, those guys. Our money is welcome, our work is expected, our vote is demanded, but our concerns must be ignored, because the GOP can't win with them. Except they don't. This voting bloc, that group, those guys never show up [except for Reagan, who espoused fiscal, defense AND social issues that drew the blue collar Dems in droves]. You trot out Bob "It's My Turn" Dole, John McCain, Mitt Romney. And you lose. And somehow, it's OUR fault. So here's the deal. We won't drag you down with our issues. Or our votes. Because to us, moderate Pubbies are merely well dressed Democrats. And that'll give you all those moderates and Independents who've held back from voting for you because of us. And then we'll see.
I am with you 100% brother!!
:thumbsup:
-
Working within the system works brings about change. Complaining about it is a waste of time and energy.
-
I am with you 100% brother!!
:thumbsup:
As am I!
-
Working within the system works brings about change. Complaining about it is a waste of time and energy.
But it does bring in the big bucks unlike solving the issue which does not.
-
But it does bring in the big bucks unlike solving the issue which does not.
I have never had experience. It allows you to bring a particular issue to them on a face to face basis. I once met a Congressman at one of these parties it allowed me a discussion of a particular defense issue. He brought it up at the next hearing the next day.
-
As am I!
How do you know if you have not tried it? I do not want to have to be the waiter. I want to have a seat.
-
The so-cons have denied more than 3 before the cock has crowed.
-
Home. We have no "seat at the GOP table". We're merely the 'staff'. Called upon to serve the dinner, and treated with anything from condescension to contempt. Our 'betters' keep telling us we have to abandon our principles for 'pragmatism', to attract this voting bloc, that group, those guys. Our money is welcome, our work is expected, our vote is demanded, but our concerns must be ignored, because the GOP can't win with them. Except they don't. This voting bloc, that group, those guys never show up [except for Reagan, who espoused fiscal, defense AND social issues that drew the blue collar Dems in droves]. You trot out Bob "It's My Turn" Dole, John McCain, Mitt Romney. And you lose. And somehow, it's OUR fault. So here's the deal. We won't drag you down with our issues. Or our votes. Because to us, moderate Pubbies are merely well dressed Democrats. And that'll give you all those moderates and Independents who've held back from voting for you because of us. And then we'll see.
:amen: :amen: :amen:
-
Working within the system works brings about change. Complaining about it is a waste of time and energy.
I've been doing that for almost forty years Trigger - and I know there are others here that have worked their tails off for the GOP longer than that. Now we're old, and we're sick to damned tired of it!
-
Home. We have no "seat at the GOP table". We're merely the 'staff'. Called upon to serve the dinner, and treated with anything from condescension to contempt. Our 'betters' keep telling us we have to abandon our principles for 'pragmatism', to attract this voting bloc, that group, those guys. Our money is welcome, our work is expected, our vote is demanded, but our concerns must be ignored, because the GOP can't win with them. Except they don't. This voting bloc, that group, those guys never show up [except for Reagan, who espoused fiscal, defense AND social issues that drew the blue collar Dems in droves]. You trot out Bob "It's My Turn" Dole, John McCain, Mitt Romney. And you lose. And somehow, it's OUR fault. So here's the deal. We won't drag you down with our issues. Or our votes. Because to us, moderate Pubbies are merely well dressed Democrats. And that'll give you all those moderates and Independents who've held back from voting for you because of us. And then we'll see.
I think, to some Pubbies, it's better to lose without the SoCons than it is to win with them. SoCons apparently expect to be listened to after voting.
-
Home. We have no "seat at the GOP table". We're merely the 'staff'. Called upon to serve the dinner, and treated with anything from condescension to contempt. Our 'betters' keep telling us we have to abandon our principles for 'pragmatism', to attract this voting bloc, that group, those guys. Our money is welcome, our work is expected, our vote is demanded, but our concerns must be ignored, because the GOP can't win with them. Except they don't. This voting bloc, that group, those guys never show up [except for Reagan, who espoused fiscal, defense AND social issues that drew the blue collar Dems in droves]. You trot out Bob "It's My Turn" Dole, John McCain, Mitt Romney. And you lose. And somehow, it's OUR fault. So here's the deal. We won't drag you down with our issues. Or our votes. Because to us, moderate Pubbies are merely well dressed Democrats. And that'll give you all those moderates and Independents who've held back from voting for you because of us. And then we'll see.
A couple of points if I may. First take a look at Reagan's nomination acceptance speech and find me a social issue he talked about. A good friend of mine was kicked off of TOS in 2007 for mentioning the fact that Reagan signed the largest abortion bill ever as California governor, in spite of his later concerns that doctors took advantage of it.
The other point is one I see often here...and elsewhere. You said, "We're merely the 'staff'. Called upon to serve the dinner, and treated with anything from condescension to contempt.", and then later in the same post said this, "Because to us, moderate Pubbies are merely well dressed Democrats." A little condescension and contempt there perhaps?
Social, fiscal, defense and the role of government aren't stand-alone issues. Some in the Party lean more heavily in one than the other. But in order to win the head seat at the table in 2016 the GOP needs more than just a vocal group from the social right. To be sure the Party needs the stronger viewpoints to help push it in the right direction, whether socially, fiscally or otherwise. But it also needs those who can sit across the table from the opposition and work out compromises. Reagan was a genius at that. Principle and pragmatism are not mutually exclusive.
But what the Party needs to understand most of all is that while its job is to lead America, it's also there to listen to America, something many have difficulty doing.
-
A couple of points if I may. First take a look at Reagan's nomination acceptance speech and find me a social issue he talked about. A good friend of mine was kicked off of TOS in 2007 for mentioning the fact that Reagan signed the largest abortion bill ever as California governor, in spite of his later concerns that doctors took advantage of it.
The other point is one I see often here...and elsewhere. You said, "We're merely the 'staff'. Called upon to serve the dinner, and treated with anything from condescension to contempt.", and then later in the same post said this, "Because to us, moderate Pubbies are merely well dressed Democrats." A little condescension and contempt there perhaps?
Social, fiscal, defense and the role of government aren't stand-alone issues. Some in the Party lean more heavily in one than the other. But in order to win the head seat at the table in 2016 the GOP needs more than just a vocal group from the social right. To be sure the Party needs the stronger viewpoints to help push it in the right direction, whether socially, fiscally or otherwise. But it also needs those who can sit across the table from the opposition and work out compromises. Reagan was a genius at that. Principle and pragmatism are not mutually exclusive.
But what the Party needs to understand most of all is that while its job is to lead America, it's also there to listen to America, something many have difficulty doing.
I prefer your analysis to Cuban's. He wants to shut the SoCons up completely, in effect throw them out of the election. I don't think that's a smart thing to do, it's led to destruction every time it's been tried.
-
I prefer your analysis to Cuban's. He wants to shut the SoCons up completely, in effect throw them out of the election. I don't think that's a smart thing to do, it's led to destruction every time it's been tried.
This time will be different because we are so much smarter now... /s
-
How do you know if you have not tried it? I do not want to have to be the waiter. I want to have a seat.
I don't think you realize that you are talking to a person who has been working within the system in the Republican party for more than 40 years! I've done everything there is to do including running for statewide office here at a time when being a Republican was not popular in these parts!
I KNOW first hand how it works and I am completely sick and tired of it!
-
I don't think you realize that you are talking to a person who has been working within the system in the Republican party for more than 40 years! I've done everything there is to do including running for statewide office here at a time when being a Republican was not popular in these parts!
I KNOW first hand how it works and I am completely sick and tired of it!
I didn't bang my head against it as long as you have, but I've done it some. Enough to know I don't like the way it's been working. I'm no longer "active" in the party, I just vote for them when I can.
-
The other point is one I see often here...and elsewhere. You said, "We're merely the 'staff'. Called upon to serve the dinner, and treated with anything from condescension to contempt.", and then later in the same post said this, "Because to us, moderate Pubbies are merely well dressed Democrats." A little condescension and contempt there perhaps?
You can call it whatever you like but it is still accurate!
The rest of what you said I agree with!
-
I prefer your analysis to Cuban's. He wants to shut the SoCons up completely, in effect throw them out of the election. I don't think that's a smart thing to do, it's led to destruction every time it's been tried.
Agree completely. The social right is an integral part of the GOP, and I suspect many if not most of them are also well into other ideological factions within the conservative foundation of the Party. I really believe it's only a couple of issues that may separate them from the mainstream of the Party, and it absolutely shouldn't!
-
I don't think you realize that you are talking to a person who has been working within the system in the Republican party for more than 40 years! I've done everything there is to do including running for statewide office here at a time when being a Republican was not popular in these parts!
I KNOW first hand how it works and I am completely sick and tired of it!
Hear hear!! You are correct, I don't think that some posters realize the history that some of us have had. I have well worn soft soled shoes that I've worn going door to door for candidates that are older than some of the posters. I've done it all since I was a teenager: phone banks, door to door, tending bar at fundraisers in firehouses, hanging signs, passing out handbills, graphics, web sites, etc.; done it all for decades. And, that hunting & fishing cabin that I've always wanted up north could have been easily paid for two or three times over with the $$$ that I've funneled into campaigns over the years!!
So yeah, I KNOW first hand how it works and I am ALSO completely sick and tired of it!
-
Agree completely. The social right is an integral part of the GOP, and I suspect many if not most of them are also well into other ideological factions within the conservative foundation of the Party. I really believe it's only a couple of issues that may separate them from the mainstream of the Party, and it absolutely shouldn't!
I heartily and respectfully disagree. The so-cons have always backed out and made themselves scarce whenever they were really needed.
-
I heartily and respectfully disagree. The so-cons have always backed out and made themselves scarce whenever they were really needed.
Bovine Fecal Matter!!!
-
I heartily and respectfully disagree. The so-cons have always backed out and made themselves scarce whenever they were really needed.
Not sure when that was, but try to win an election without them. And BTW, I tell the social right to try to win an election without the other factions. They as well as other ideologies within the Party and its leanings make a lot of threats every election. But in the end, nine out of ten will be there. Most understand very well that as disappointing as the GOP has been at times, the alternative makes "disappointment" look like a picnic on the lake.
:xedfingers:
-
I've been doing that for almost forty years Trigger - and I know there are others here that have worked their tails off for the GOP longer than that. Now we're old, and we're sick to damned tired of it!
I have been doing it for 20 years and it works
-
Not sure when that was, but try to win an election without them. And BTW, I tell the social right to try to win an election without the other factions. They as well as other ideologies within the Party and its leanings make a lot of threats every election. But in the end, nine out of ten will be there. Most understand very well that as disappointing as the GOP has been at times, the alternative makes "disappointment" look like a picnic on the lake.
:xedfingers:
We hang together or we'll surely hang separately. I am inclined to understand everybody's frustration because we've all, SoCons and FisCons alike, been forced to watch helplessly as our prime reason for voting got thrown under the bus by some charlatan.
-
Not sure when that was, but try to win an election without them. And BTW, I tell the social right to try to win an election without the other factions. They as well as other ideologies within the Party and its leanings make a lot of threats every election. But in the end, nine out of ten will be there. Most understand very well that as disappointing as the GOP has been at times, the alternative makes "disappointment" look like a picnic on the lake.
Also need to get the majority of Independents' votes, to win in many cases, and that faction agrees on the fiscal aspects of conservatism, but is closer to dems on social topics.
The objective of an election is to get votes and elect a candidate. The candidates job LATER is to argue/deliberate/arbitrate/decide policies and funds on a wide range of topics.
-
Bovine Fecal Matter!!!
1. http://jsr.fsu.edu/issues/vol13/miller-steven.html (http://jsr.fsu.edu/issues/vol13/miller-steven.html)
Flippen unfolds his tale in rich detail: Carter’s faith moved front and center during his White House run, prompted by journalists eager to anoint a spokesperson for the born-agains. Carter probably did not win a majority of evangelical votes in 1976. However, he did attract support from Pat Robertson and Richard John Neuhaus (neither of whom were then outright rightists), as well as other future critics. Expectations were high among social conservatives. Liberals had expectations, too. And both groups more or less heard what they wanted to hear from candidate Carter. Thus, while Carter understandably thought giving attention to family issues would assist him politically, he proved mistaken. Carter spoke about the crisis of the family with the clean, warm-but-spare language befitting of a Sunday school lesson. Alas, the tone of family politics would not always prove so family-friendly.
My memory wasn't that bad on this one. Support of the of Carter because of his "Christian" tale.
Pat Robertson Presidential candidacy in 1988 leads to lessened support of George H.W. Bush. Increased Christian support of Bill Clinton in 1992.
So Cons stay at home after George W. Bush DWI gets revealed 2 days before Election Day.
Thats just off the top of my head and a quick check of references. The "Moral Majority", "Christian Right", whatever is NOT the reliable demographic which the group would like to represent.
-
Also need to get the majority of Independents' votes, to win in many cases, and that faction agrees on the fiscal aspects of conservatism, but is closer to dems on social topics.
The objective of an election is to get votes and elect a candidate. The candidates job LATER is to argue/deliberate/arbitrate/decide policies and funds on a wide range of topics.
It's one of the problems that makes the job of a Republican so difficult. If we can campaign on the areas of agreement rather than disagreement, we might just be able to bring in more indies. Certain social issues simply aren't going to work. And it has nothing to do with values or principles. We all have them, but without winning, all the "principles" in the world will not be worth a plug nickel. Besides, I still believe the social right has a lot of interest in fiscal and defense issues.
-
It's one of the problems that makes the job of a Republican so difficult. If we can campaign on the areas of agreement rather than disagreement, we might just be able to bring in more indies. Certain social issues simply aren't going to work. And it has nothing to do with values or principles. We all have them, but without winning, all the "principles" in the world will not be worth a plug nickel. Besides, I still believe the social right has a lot of interest in fiscal and defense issues.
The social right has only minor interest in fiscal and defense issues. They do not vote on those issues; if the social issues are not to their liking, they don't vote. I think the number of them that stayed home in 2012 was 4 million. There is no compromise with libertarian leaning fiscal conservatives who want gov't out of our private lives.
Maybe there will actually be a blessing from this disastrous 0bama admin., and we can have a 2016 campaign based on fiscal and defense issues and not have to worry about people's private lives.
-
The social right has only minor interest in fiscal and defense issues. They do not vote on those issues; if the social issues are not to their liking, they don't vote. I think the number of them that stayed home in 2012 was 4 million. There is no compromise with libertarian leaning fiscal conservatives who want gov't out of our private lives.
Maybe there will actually be a blessing from this disastrous 0bama admin., and we can have a 2016 campaign based on fiscal and defense issues and not have to worry about people's private lives.
How easy it is to pigeonhole people to one side or the other. I reject your binary world. It's not one or the other. Most of us are both.
-
1. http://jsr.fsu.edu/issues/vol13/miller-steven.html (http://jsr.fsu.edu/issues/vol13/miller-steven.html)
Flippen unfolds his tale in rich detail: Carter’s faith moved front and center during his White House run, prompted by journalists eager to anoint a spokesperson for the born-agains. Carter probably did not win a majority of evangelical votes in 1976. However, he did attract support from Pat Robertson and Richard John Neuhaus (neither of whom were then outright rightists), as well as other future critics. Expectations were high among social conservatives. Liberals had expectations, too. And both groups more or less heard what they wanted to hear from candidate Carter. Thus, while Carter understandably thought giving attention to family issues would assist him politically, he proved mistaken. Carter spoke about the crisis of the family with the clean, warm-but-spare language befitting of a Sunday school lesson. Alas, the tone of family politics would not always prove so family-friendly.
My memory wasn't that bad on this one. Support of the of Carter because of his "Christian" tale.
Pat Robertson Presidential candidacy in 1988 leads to lessened support of George H.W. Bush. Increased Christian support of Bill Clinton in 1992.
So Cons stay at home after George W. Bush DWI gets revealed 2 days before Election Day.
Thats just off the top of my head and a quick check of references. The "Moral Majority", "Christian Right", whatever is NOT the reliable demographic which the group would like to represent.
So some adjunct associate professor at Podunk University is the worlds leading authority on the rise of the Religious Right in this country?
Sheech!!
-
Hear hear!! You are correct, I don't think that some posters realize the history that some of us have had. I have well worn soft soled shoes that I've worn going door to door for candidates that are older than some of the posters. I've done it all since I was a teenager: phone banks, door to door, tending bar at fundraisers in firehouses, hanging signs, passing out handbills, graphics, web sites, etc.; done it all for decades. And, that hunting & fishing cabin that I've always wanted up north could have been easily paid for two or three times over with the $$$ that I've funneled into campaigns over the years!!
So yeah, I KNOW first hand how it works and I am ALSO completely sick and tired of it!
I have done all of that and still be awarded by the RNC their accolades for both raising money and going door to door
-
I have done all of that and still be awarded by the RNC their accolades for both raising money and going door to door
Wonderful! Uh, how many votes? That's kind of the bottom line here. You can't just write checks to achieve greatness.
-
I have done all of that and still be awarded by the RNC their accolades for both raising money and going door to door
It's good that you feel well-represented by your congress critters, Trigger. Obviously, there are a good number of us that no longer feel the way you do. There comes a point when you've heard all the rhetoric so many times and still hearing the same old excuses by the same old people.
Myself? I want to see a new party ultimately step up and speak for a whole hell of a lot of us, that are sick of the way things are now.
-
The social right has only minor interest in fiscal and defense issues. They do not vote on those issues; if the social issues are not to their liking, they don't vote. I think the number of them that stayed home in 2012 was 4 million. There is no compromise with libertarian leaning fiscal conservatives who want gov't out of our private lives.
Maybe there will actually be a blessing from this disastrous 0bama admin., and we can have a 2016 campaign based on fiscal and defense issues and not have to worry about people's private lives.
I disagree with your first point. I don't know how many stayed home in 2012, but the fact is that Obama overwhelmingly won the women, young, and Hispanic vote. According to one analysis, those who wanted an end to all abortions voted for Romney over Obama by almost 80 to 20. The same for the gay-marriage issue. But while Romney won the born again vote by 78-21, Obama actually won the Catholic vote. And the Tea Party vote went to Romney 87-21.
So it doesn't take much to see that 2012 wasn't about the social right staying home as much as it was about the women, young and Hispanics who didn't. And the GOP didn't pay a lot of attention to the groups that didn't vote for Romney. They were sucker-punched, and spent a lot of time trying to defend against the silly charges of wars on women, minorities, gays and the poor, which BTW worked for Obama. And Romney was simply the last man standing, and failed to inspire just about everyone who watched his debates and speeches.
So I wouldn't run off or rule out the social right too quickly. They are traditionally Republican voters, even if some of their social issues will have to take a back seat in '16.
-
It's good that you feel well-represented by your congress critters, Trigger. Obviously, there are a good number of us that no longer feel the way you do.
They are there to represent you. If you do not like it run against them
-
Wonderful! Uh, how many votes? That's kind of the bottom line here. You can't just write checks to achieve greatness.
It takes money to win. The last time I checked, donating money is free speech.
-
So some adjunct associate professor at Podunk University is the worlds leading authority on the rise of the Religious Right in this country?
Sheech!!
Christian support for Jimmy Carter was not a secret. I just grabbed the first link I found.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysv-t7UOeFs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysv-t7UOeFs)
-
I disagree with your first point. I don't know how many stayed home in 2012, but the fact is that Obama overwhelmingly won the women, young, and Hispanic vote. According to one analysis, those who wanted an end to all abortions voted for Romney over Obama by almost 80 to 20. The same for the gay-marriage issue. But while Romney won the born again vote by 78-21, Obama actually won the Catholic vote. And the Tea Party vote went to Romney 87-21.
So it doesn't take much to see that 2012 wasn't about the social right staying home as much as it was about the women, young and Hispanics who didn't. And the GOP didn't pay a lot of attention to the groups that didn't vote for Romney. They were sucker-punched, and spent a lot of time trying to defend against the silly charges of wars on women, minorities, gays and the poor, which BTW worked for Obama. And Romney was simply the last man standing, and failed to inspire just about everyone who watched his debates and speeches.
So I wouldn't run off or rule out the social right too quickly. They are traditionally Republican voters, even if some of their social issues will have to take a back seat in '16.
You might not like that point, but analyses have shown that millions of social conservatives stayed home. The analysis you quoted was the one surveying the people who did vote. I don't mean to sound like I'm against the social conservatives, but many of them do have a litmus test, and those won't vote unless the candidate supports their issue.
There are a lot of single issue voters in both parties. IMO, we'd do better by acknowledging that and having open discussions about which issues are most important in the near term, and which issues should be handled later or differently. Pretending that all issues will get equal priority is only a way to make the elected Congress/President appear to fail. They can't do everything for everyone.
-
It takes money to win. The last time I checked, donating money is free speech.
"Takes money to win" != "Money wins"
Fetching money is grand. Getting recognition for it is pretty great, too. Thinking it gives one some kind of rhetorical authority is "meh."
-
"Takes money to win" != "Money wins"
Fetching money is grand. Getting recognition for it is pretty great, too. Thinking it gives one some kind of rhetorical authority is "meh."
These congressmen and women have to run both a primary and general election. In order to win they have to fundraise. They have to pay for printing fees, staff and other related expenses which cost thousands of dollars. Unless you have a money tree please let met know.
-
These congressmen and women have to run both a primary and general election. In order to win they have to fundraise. They have to pay for printing fees, staff and other related expenses which cost thousands of dollars. Unless you have a money tree please let met know.
Let me try this once more: If money is everything, then why did Romney lose? Stop trying to impress me with your suave Republican connections, I don't care. You are insulting my intelligence.
-
Let me try this once more: If money is everything, then why did Romney lose? Stop trying to impress me with your suave Republican connections, I don't care. You are insulting my intelligence.
Romney lost because he was not tough enough against Obama. I would gone like him like Pit bull like Ronald Reagan did on Walter Mondale and Jimmy Carter
-
Romney lost because he was not tough enough against Obama. I would gone like him like Pit bull
Romney was a pit bull with no known teeth.
Mitt Romney was an excellent object lesson that tons and tons of money dumped into a campaign gets you dick if you don't have a message. He didn't have one because he didn't have any principles beyond getting elected. He proved he didn't have any of those when he told the SoCons to pound sand.
Which, ironically, is precisely what you are telling the next candidate to do.
-
Romney was a pit bull with no known teeth.
Mitt Romney was an excellent object lesson that tons and tons of money dumped into a campaign gets you dick if you don't have a message. He didn't have one because he didn't have any principles beyond getting elected. He proved he didn't have any of those when he told the SoCons to pound sand.
Which, ironically, is precisely what you are telling the next candidate to do.
Why won't you run then. You seem to have the answers.I double dog you.
-
How easy it is to pigeonhole people to one side or the other. I reject your binary world. It's not one or the other. Most of us are both.
I think it's safe to say that the social conservatives do want to legislate their morality, at the federal level, on other Americans. Isn't that why DOMA was passed? It's safe to say that there is never going to be another proposed constitutional ban on gay marriage again in this country. It's been decided. It's over, social conservatives. Hold your own personal beliefs and continue to believe them, I don't care at all what others think of gays, but your country has decided that gays are going to marry.
If you truly are outraged, show up in the millions in DC and demand that gays can't marry each other. Nobody cares. It's not like abortion or taxes. I think abortion is a much more legitimate morality point to run on these days. I think it's a political loser as well, but at least there is a strong ethical case to make of how abortion kills children, as well as permanently causing emotional damage to the many young mothers who are persuaded to kill their child, even if they would rather keep it.
-
I think it's safe to say that the social conservatives do want to legislate their morality, at the federal level, on other Americans. Isn't that why DOMA was passed? It's safe to say that there is never going to be another proposed constitutional ban on gay marriage again in this country. It's been decided. It's over, social conservatives. Hold your own personal beliefs and continue to believe them, I don't care at all what others think of gays, but your country has decided that gays are going to marry.
If you truly are outraged, show up in the millions in DC and demand that gays can't marry each other. Nobody cares. It's not like abortion or taxes. I think abortion is a much more legitimate morality point to run on these days. I think it's a political loser as well, but at least there is a strong ethical case to make of how abortion kills children, as well as permanently causing emotional damage to the many young mothers who are persuaded to kill their child, even if they would rather keep it.
So you support Obama's stance on gays then you hate him. Which is it? Liberals are legislating their morality.I believe in strong litmus tests the nominees might use are more fervently discussed when vacancies for the U.S. Supreme Court appear likely. They must be social conservatives (Ronald Reagan type nominees), anti-abortion, anti-gay. They must interpret the Constitution strictly.In textualism in statutory interpretation and originalism in constitutional interpretation, like Antonin Scalia.
-
They are there to represent you. If you do not like it run against them
They are there to represent you. If you do not like it run against them
Yeah. And have the Mississippi machine work with the Dems to get Dim voters to cross party lines in the primary to beat the conservative challenger. Or try the Robertson playbook in Kansas [which both he and the GOP governor may lose. Indies not biting?]. Or watch McConnell's PAC unload beaucoups bucks in primaries uniformly against conservatives? When you say "run against them", I presume you refer to the entire GOPe, because that's the way it turns out.
-
Yeah. And have the Mississippi machine work with the Dems to get Dim voters to cross party lines in the primary to beat the conservative challenger. Or try the Robertson playbook in Kansas [which both he and the GOP governor may lose. Indies not biting?]. Or watch McConnell's PAC unload beaucoups bucks in primaries uniformly against conservatives? When you say "run against them", I presume you refer to the entire GOPe, because that's the way it turns out.
If GOP voters do not like their GOP elected leaders run against them in the primary and find how easy it is.
-
I have apparently missed the anti-gay section of the Constitution.
Would somebody point it out, to me? Thanks.
-
I have apparently missed the anti-gay section of the Constitution
Would somebody point it out, to me? Thanks.
Its not stated in the Constitution
Then you have the Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996) and Lawerence v, Texas. Ask them on their thoughts on these cases
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/gayrights.htm
-
Trigger wrote:
So you support Obama's stance on gays then you hate him. Which is it?
Can't speak for Carling, but for me it isn't about Obama, but how society is accepting of gays and same-sex marriage. Personally I don't like same-sex marriage, but it's simply no longer a winning political issue and it's time to move on to issues conservatives can actually make a difference with.
-
You might not like that point, but analyses have shown that millions of social conservatives stayed home. The analysis you quoted was the one surveying the people who did vote. I don't mean to sound like I'm against the social conservatives, but many of them do have a litmus test, and those won't vote unless the candidate supports their issue.
I am questioning two of your hypotheses. I continue to believe that social conservatives for the most part embrace other issues including fiscal and defense. Social conservatives are not all evangelicals, many of whom may well have a litmus test for voting. And I don't see the 4 million missing votes being all from these evangelicals. Obama lost 7 million votes from his 2008, while winning the Catholic vote. And 6 million self-described evangelicals voted for Obama (Joel Rosenberg). The same report shows a greater percentage of Protestant Christians voted for Romney than for McCain in '08. Romney's term as governor of Massachusetts left a lot of people questioning his conservatism, not just for gay marriage.
There are a lot of single issue voters in both parties. IMO, we'd do better by acknowledging that and having open discussions about which issues are most important in the near term, and which issues should be handled later or differently. Pretending that all issues will get equal priority is only a way to make the elected Congress/President appear to fail. They can't do everything for everyone.
I agree. By and large, Obama won through a campaign of spreading fear of Republicans through various demographic groups, and Romney simply couldn't respond effectively. Expect it again in '16. One thing potential candidates need to stay away from is signing pledges. Another is to recognize that during the primaries they will be inundated with demands from those single issue voters. Don't let themselves be painted into a corner and understand how the MSM will spin it. But above all, stay away from the circular firing squad of 2012!
-
Its not stated in the Constitution
I don't think anti-rape or anti-pedophila sections are in the Constitution either.
Therefore...
-
I don't think anti-rape or anti-pedophila sections are in the Constitution either.
Therefore...
In the United States, the principle of dual sovereignty applies to rape, as to other crimes. If the rape is committed within the borders of a state, that state has jurisdiction. If the victim is a federal official, an ambassador, consul, or other foreign official under the protection of the United States, or if the crime took place on federal property or involved crossing state borders, or in a manner that substantially affects interstate commerce or national security, then the federal government also has jurisdiction.
If a crime is not committed within any state, such as in the District of Columbia or on a naval or U.S.-flagged merchant vessel in international waters, then federal jurisdiction is exclusive. In cases where the rape involves both state and federal jurisdictions, the offender can be tried and punished separately for each crime without raising issues of double jeopardy.
Because the United States comprises 51 jurisdictions, each with its own criminal code, this section treats only the crime of rape in the federal courts and does not deal with state-by-state specifics. Federal law does not use the term "rape". Rape is grouped with all forms of non-consensual sexual acts under chapter 109a of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. §§ 2241–2248).
Under federal law, the punishment for rape can range from a fine to life imprisonment. The severity of the punishment is based on the use of violence, the age of the victim, and whether drugs or intoxicants were used to override consent. If the perpetrator is a repeat offender the law prescribes automatically doubling the maximum sentence.
Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U.S. ___ (2008) was a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that held that the Eighth Amendment's cruel and unusual punishment clause did not permit a state to punish the crime of rape of a child with the death penalty if the victim does not die and death was not intended, therefore if a person is convicted of rape he or she is not eligible for the death penalty according to the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Kennedy v. Louisiana 554 U.S. ___ (2008).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_the_United_States#Criminal_Punishment
-
Can't speak for Carling, but for me it isn't about Obama, but how society is accepting of gays and same-sex marriage. Personally I don't like same-sex marriage, but it's simply no longer a winning political issue and it's time to move on to issues conservatives can actually make a difference with.
There is a group who do not. Liberals should not be doing this. I do not wonder if this board is a conservative one or a liberal one.
-
There is a group who do not. Liberals should not be doing this. I do not wonder if this board is a conservative one or a liberal one.
Yeah....but WTF does all this have to do with what Mark Cuban said?
Seems some are always quick to get into pissing contests over social issues, which helps explain why they are such divisive issues.
....which btw, is Mark Cuban's point.
You wanna win? STFU come election time.
This only adds credence to the statement that a Conservative administration cannot govern a liberal culture. Change the culture first by changing the education system, abolishing all public and teacher unions, tenure, and ferreting out all the Commies. That's a good start.
-
Yeah....but WTF does all this have to do with what Mark Cuban said?
Seems some are always quick to get into pissing contests over social issues, which helps explain why they are such divisive issues.
....which btw, is Mark Cuban's point.
You wanna win? STFU come election time.
This only adds credence to the statement that a Conservative administration cannot govern a liberal culture. Change the culture first by changing the education system, abolishing all public and teacher unions, tenure, and ferreting out all the Commies. That's a good start.
This board is becoming liberal and liberal everyday. It does have to do with the Mark Cuban comment because many previous comments has the liberal taint to it. We are losing its original mission here. Social issues and being a conservative goes hand in hand. I have already voted and I voted for the Republican Candidate for Governor.
-
This board is becoming liberal and liberal everyday. Its losing its original mission. Social issues and being a conservative goes hand in hand. I have already voted and I voted for the Republican Candidate for Governor.
So only social conservatives need post? :thud:
-
So only social conservatives need post? :thud:
They can post. But hypocritical. There are a lot of hypocritical people here
-
This board is becoming liberal and liberal everyday. It does have to do with the Mark Cuban comment because many previous comments has the liberal taint to it. We are losing its original mission here. Social issues and being a conservative goes hand in hand. I have already voted and I voted for the Republican Candidate for Governor.
What a shame that this board is being tainted by Democratic Ideals. If you going to be a conservative be one with a big "C" not a small ones. Do not pick and choose the issues you like
-
On another thread I was arguing that social conservatives in general tended not to be single issue voters. Perhaps I was mistaken...
*hmmmm*
-
On another thread I was arguing that social conservatives in general tended not to be single issue voters. Perhaps I was mistaken...
*hmmmm*
If you going to be a conservative be one with a big "C" not a small ones. Do not pick and choose the issues you like
-
This board is becoming liberal and liberal everyday. Its losing its original mission. Social issues and being a conservative goes hand in hand. I have already voted and I voted for the Republican Candidate for Governor.
The site name is "GOP" Briefing Room, not "extreme conservative only" briefing room.
This board was originally formed for wide ranging intelligent discussion, in place of "one size only" Fresno based sites.
It has generally been just that. Your complaint it is turning away from "original mission" sounds plain ill-informed. One of the early favorites of the site was Rudolph William Louis "Rudy" Giuliani, get it?
If you just need an echo chamber, I can recommend some.
-
The site name is "GOP" Briefing Room, not "extreme conservative only" briefing room.
This board was originally formed for wide ranging intelligent discussion, in place of "one size only" Fresno based sites.
It has generally been just that. Your complaint it is turning away from "original mission" sounds plain ill-informed. One of the early favorites of the site was Rudolph William Louis "Rudy" Giuliani, get it?
If you just need an echo chamber, I can recommend some.
All the arguements are tilted to the left.But the one size fits all has become uniform, to the left. But are we having discussion about the direction of this site?
-
If you going to be a conservative be one with a big "C" not a small ones. Do not pick and choose the issues you like
As defined by you, I presume.
-
As defined by you, I presume.
No.
-
All the arguements are tilted to the left.But the one size fits all has become uniform, to the left. But are we having discussion about the direction of this site?
The question whether the site what going to tilt to Liberal Republicans or Conservative Republicans was bound to come up in one way or another.
-
This board is becoming liberal and liberal everyday. It does have to do with the Mark Cuban comment because many previous comments has the liberal taint to it. We are losing its original mission here. Social issues and being a conservative goes hand in hand. I have already voted and I voted for the Republican Candidate for Governor.
I'm not liberal in any manner.
What I see here is that we're living in Sodom and Gomorrah and some posters think it's Jerusalem.
-
I'm not liberal in any manner.
What I see here is that we're living in Sodom and Gomorrah and some posters think it's Jerusalem.
We need a clean up of Liberals that festered on this site. Its gone on too long.
-
If you going to be a conservative be one with a big "C" not a small ones. Do not pick and choose the issues you like
Well just Damn. Fortunately there are those here who can tell me exactly what to think!
-
I am questioning two of your hypotheses. I continue to believe that social conservatives for the most part embrace other issues including fiscal and defense. Social conservatives are not all evangelicals, many of whom may well have a litmus test for voting. And I don't see the 4 million missing votes being all from these evangelicals. Obama lost 7 million votes from his 2008, while winning the Catholic vote. And 6 million self-described evangelicals voted for Obama (Joel Rosenberg). The same report shows a greater percentage of Protestant Christians voted for Romney than for McCain in '08. Romney's term as governor of Massachusetts left a lot of people questioning his conservatism, not just for gay marriage.
Social conservatives don't seem to be worried about fiscal issues or defense. They have litmus tests for their issues. I would say that not all evangelicals are social conservatives; nor are all social conservatives evangelicals. Those are different issues. Catholics seem to have decided that gov't is the agent for charity. They vote dim because that is the party that has taken over the Catholic responsibility for charitable acts. (I am Catholic, but I disagree with many of them about how to fulfill our obligations to perform charitable deeds. I think those are individual responsibilities, and relegating that duty to gov't agencies is not righteous.)
The people who look for gov't to dispense charity are not exactly the same as the ones who want gov't to enforce rules about gay marriage or abortion. The two groups may overlap, but they're not exactly the same people.
I agree. By and large, Obama won through a campaign of spreading fear of Republicans through various demographic groups, and Romney simply couldn't respond effectively. Expect it again in '16. One thing potential candidates need to stay away from is signing pledges. Another is to recognize that during the primaries they will be inundated with demands from those single issue voters. Don't let themselves be painted into a corner and understand how the MSM will spin it. But above all, stay away from the circular firing squad of 2012!
About single issue voters - I don't really think there is any way to make them happy, except with really fortuitous circumstances. One prime example of how single issue campaigning can't work is what happened in W's first term. He took office in Jan., and IIRC, he had a domestic agenda. But on 9/11, that all changed. Would any of us have wanted him to stick to a single campaign issue instead of doing the best he could to respond to that horror?
I'll always vote for general competence over specific issue promises, because I just don't think we can know what the future will bring.
-
Although the owners of TBR are ultra conservative, Tracy and I welcome all the factions of the GOP here...liberals....there are none here that I know of....over the years I have occasionally allowed a few liberals here but they haven't lasted long....
-
I'm not liberal in any manner.
What I see here is that we're living in Sodom and Gomorrah and some posters think it's Jerusalem.
JMO (remember, worth every penny that you pay for it!!): "Desperate times call for desperate measures" seems to be the cause of a lot of what we have been seeing go on for several years now. It is my opinion, that things are so *&%&$#! bad in this country now, that a lot of folks just want to see the current regime STOPPED no matter how it is done. So, along those lines, you can expect a lot of former "principles" to fall by the wayside. Some label it as the triumph of Pragmatism over Principle. YMMV
-
Although the owners of TBR are ultra conservative....
I am glad that you are a ultra conservative and I salute you. I hope other people follow your example. The Republican Party should be flawless like a pearl with no imperfections.
Rather I should other posters follow your example.
-
The Republican Party should be flawless like a pearl.
That has never happened and never will....
-
That has never happened and never will....
I guess you are correct. But we can always strive for it.
-
So only social conservatives need post? :thud:
There is a board for social conservatives who are actively rooting for the "GOPe" to fail in their races these mid-terms. It's call FreeRepublic. Although donations look low there, so I suppose JimRob will author another one of his famous 180s, and say people should vote for "RINOs," in order to keep his money train a rollin'. :whistle:
-
I guess you are correct. But we can always strive for it.
I am glad the owners(Mystery) of this board are ultra-conservatives and making themselves known.They probably reflect my values.
:amen: :amen: :amen:
-
If you going to be a conservative be one with a big "C" not a small ones. Do not pick and choose the issues you like
In my world, being a Conservative, instead of a conservative, means not wanting the federal government to legislate my morality on others.
The gays want federal laws forcing their morality on everyone.
The anti-gays want federal laws forcing their morality on everyone.
I'll let God decide how people live their lives when their time here is up, not my government. As long as someone isn't committing crimes on individuals without their consent (rape), or without the cognitive skills to give consent (pedophilia and statutory rape), it's none of my business, other than to teach my kids how to become productive citizens when they leave our nest.
I think both sides are the same, other than their polar-opposite views on homosexuality, and they don't even know it.
-
Although the owners of TBR are ultra conservative, Tracy and I welcome all the factions of the GOP here...liberals....there are none here that I know of....over the years I have occasionally allowed a few liberals here but they haven't lasted long....
Mystery needs to check who is posting and their tilt.
-
Mystery needs to check who is posting and their tilt.
That's bullshit!
Trigger, WTH is wrong with you? :chairbang:
-
Mystery needs to check who is posting and their tilt.
:terror:
-
:terror:
:laugh:
-
*look*
-
That's bullshit!
Trigger, WTH is wrong with you? :chairbang:
Very Good use of Colorful Metaphors. I was expecting a man with your education to pick better words.
-
*look*
I will stop.
-
Very Good use of Colorful Metaphors. I was expecting a man with your education to pick better words.
Believe me, it wasn't my first or second choice. I settled. :shrug:
-
There is a board for social conservatives who are actively rooting for the "GOPe" to fail in their races these mid-terms. It's call FreeRepublic. Although donations look low there, so I suppose JimRob will author another one of his famous 180s, and say people should vote for "RINOs," in order to keep his money train a rollin'. :whistle:
Yep. I check over there every so often, less and less as times goes by. JR seems to be even crazier, as are a lot of the posters. Used to go there everyday, now I don't miss it at all.
-
Mystery needs to check who is posting and their tilt.
There is no one here more conservative than I but I must tell you that IMHO you have gone WAY over the line with this one!
-
There is no one here more conservative than I but I must tell you that IMHO you have gone WAY over the line with this one!
Totally agree. We've seen what happens when approved thoughts or views are the only posts permitted. Besides, it goes totally against what myst and repub believe.
-
Totally agree. We've seen what happens when approved thoughts or views are the only posts permitted. Besides, it goes totally against what myst and repub believe.
I just wanted to know people stood on issues. I already knew that the owners of the site were ultra-conservatives from another site.
-
I just wanted to know people stood on issues. I already knew that the owners of the site were ultra-conservatives from another site.
The owners here are no more Conservative than any of us. We've been together long enough that we KNOW what everybody's position is on the issues.
We've been together since the stained blue dress and hanging chads. Since Waco, Monica, Elian Gonzalez and Terry Schiavo.
Long enough to know that the core group here are "Big C" Republicans and that the GOP is the ONLY vehicle we have to stop the Left's agenda.
What we also are is tolerant. And pragmatic.
...at least, MOST of the time! :laugh:
-
Although the owners of TBR are ultra conservative, Tracy and I welcome all the factions of the GOP here...liberals....there are none here that I know of....over the years I have occasionally allowed a few liberals here but they haven't lasted long....
No one here is more conservative/Conservative than me. I know because I say so. I consider Birchers to be libertine. I know because I say so. Just because my ass isn't parked in some pew somewhere on a Sunday morning doesn't mean I'm not conservative/Conservative. I know because I say so.
-
No one here is more conservative/Conservative than me. I know because I say so. I consider Birchers to be libertine. I know because I say so. Just because my ass isn't parked in some pew somewhere on a Sunday morning doesn't mean I'm not conservative/Conservative. I know because I say so.
:beer:
-
No one here is more conservative/Conservative than me. I know because I say so. I consider Birchers to be libertine. I know because I say so. Just because my ass isn't parked in some pew somewhere on a Sunday morning doesn't mean I'm not conservative/Conservative. I know because I say so.
:thumbsup:
-
No one here is more conservative/Conservative than me. I know because I say so. I consider Birchers to be libertine. I know because I say so. Just because my ass isn't parked in some pew somewhere on a Sunday morning doesn't mean I'm not conservative/Conservative. I know because I say so.
Sez you! :amen:
-
I apologize to everyone over yesterday. I have 2 weeks developing a Powerpoint presentation for two classes at the same time. I was just cracking under pressure. Again, I apologize and I hope that you forgive me.
-
:bighug:
-
I apologize to everyone over yesterday. I have 2 weeks developing a Powerpoint presentation for two classes at the same time. I was just cracking under pressure. Again, I apologize and I hope that you forgive me.
And I apologize to you, Trigger.
No Powerpoint presentations...no classes. I'm just too old, that's all. :beer:
-
I apologize to everyone over yesterday. I have 2 weeks developing a Powerpoint presentation for two classes at the same time. I was just cracking under pressure. Again, I apologize and I hope that you forgive me.
:beer:
-
I apologize to everyone over yesterday. I have 2 weeks developing a Powerpoint presentation for two classes at the same time. I was just cracking under pressure. Again, I apologize and I hope that you forgive me.
:patriot:
-
I apologize to everyone over yesterday. I have 2 weeks developing a Powerpoint presentation for two classes at the same time. I was just cracking under pressure. Again, I apologize and I hope that you forgive me.
What happened yesterday... 0005
Not to worry Trigger. :beer:
-
What happened yesterday... 0005
Not to worry Trigger. :beer:
I had to give a Powerpoint presentation on Russia and on the Civil War. Two different classes at the same time. These teachers have made my life miserable and riding me for 8 weeks. I have to thank everyone for forgiving me
-
Shit!
What'd I miss?
-
A couple of points if I may. First take a look at Reagan's nomination acceptance speech and find me a social issue he talked about. A good friend of mine was kicked off of TOS in 2007 for mentioning the fact that Reagan signed the largest abortion bill ever as California governor, in spite of his later concerns that doctors took advantage of it.
The other point is one I see often here...and elsewhere. You said, "We're merely the 'staff'. Called upon to serve the dinner, and treated with anything from condescension to contempt.", and then later in the same post said this, "Because to us, moderate Pubbies are merely well dressed Democrats." A little condescension and contempt there perhaps?
Social, fiscal, defense and the role of government aren't stand-alone issues. Some in the Party lean more heavily in one than the other. But in order to win the head seat at the table in 2016 the GOP needs more than just a vocal group from the social right. To be sure the Party needs the stronger viewpoints to help push it in the right direction, whether socially, fiscally or otherwise. But it also needs those who can sit across the table from the opposition and work out compromises. Reagan was a genius at that. Principle and pragmatism are not mutually exclusive.
But what the Party needs to understand most of all is that while its job is to lead America, it's also there to listen to America, something many have difficulty doing.
"When I began entering into the give and take of legislative bargaining in Sacramento, a lot of the most radical conservatives who had supported me during the election didn't like it. "Compromise" was a dirty word to them and they wouldn't face the fact that we couldn't get all of what we wanted today. They wanted all or nothing and they wanted it all at once. If you don't get it all, some said, don't take anything. "I'd learned while negotiating union contracts that you seldom got everything you asked for. And I agreed with FDR, who said in 1933: 'I have no expectations of making a hit every time I come to bat. What I seek is the highest possible batting average.”
"If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later, and that's what I told these radical conservatives who never got used to it. ~~ Ronald Reagan, in his autobiography, An American Life
-
"When I began entering into the give and take of legislative bargaining in Sacramento, a lot of the most radical conservatives who had supported me during the election didn't like it. "Compromise" was a dirty word to them and they wouldn't face the fact that we couldn't get all of what we wanted today. They wanted all or nothing and they wanted it all at once. If you don't get it all, some said, don't take anything. "I'd learned while negotiating union contracts that you seldom got everything you asked for. And I agreed with FDR, who said in 1933: 'I have no expectations of making a hit every time I come to bat. What I seek is the highest possible batting average.”
"If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later, and that's what I told these radical conservatives who never got used to it. ~~ Ronald Reagan, in his autobiography, An American Life
My problem is conservatives are such poor compromisers. They are satisfied with the 80% they received and start parading it around like some sort of trophy head. Liberals, on the other hand, start slicing back to 79%, then 78%, then to 75% and so on until the bloody hands the conservatives have left. Then the MEDIA puts the photo on front page for all to see, "WE TOLD YOU WHO THE VILLIANS WERE!".
Until there is comparable MEDIA organization to what the Leftists have, we are going nowhere.
After Fox News, there should have been a news organization further to the right, then another further to the Right and so on. That would have undermined the FAUX News thing right in the bud.
-
"When I began entering into the give and take of legislative bargaining in Sacramento, a lot of the most radical conservatives who had supported me during the election didn't like it. "Compromise" was a dirty word to them and they wouldn't face the fact that we couldn't get all of what we wanted today. They wanted all or nothing and they wanted it all at once. If you don't get it all, some said, don't take anything. "I'd learned while negotiating union contracts that you seldom got everything you asked for. And I agreed with FDR, who said in 1933: 'I have no expectations of making a hit every time I come to bat. What I seek is the highest possible batting average.”
"If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later, and that's what I told these radical conservatives who never got used to it. ~~ Ronald Reagan, in his autobiography, An American Life
Yes, Reagan was a hell of a negotiator. Problem with negotiation, you're expected to give the other side something in return. But since you know you're right about an issue, why compromise anything. The world should see you're right, and if they don't, screw 'em.
-
The world should see you're right, and if they don't, screw 'em.
You sure you ain't my wife?
-
You sure you ain't my wife?
This ain't Massachusetts; it's South Carolina. :laugh:
-
Yes, Reagan was a hell of a negotiator. Problem with negotiation, you're expected to give the other side something in return. But since you know you're right about an issue, why compromise anything. The world should see you're right, and if they don't, screw 'em.
So we have people thinking that politics=ideology and when politicians engage in the give and take of politics they're accused of being... well... politicians and traitors to the ideology.
Ideologues want their side to rule over the other side via politics and the side trying to swim upstream (conservatives) is going to lose 9 out of 10 battles where they don't compromise, and "compromise" (as Reagan pointed out in his memoirs) is a dirty word to them.
Societies have been moving left since societies were conceived. Conservatives are supposed to treasure individual freedom above all else, yet, these days many conservatives seem to be constantly fighting against individual freedoms to one degree or another.
Swimming upstream.
-
Social issues have been, and will continue to be, the death of the republican party because, for one thing, the social issue positions demanded by the social conservatives are, if viewed objectively, anathema to the principles of individual liberty and freedom that this country was founded on.
In point of fact, if it hadn't been for the social conservatives' fascist insistence on denying any recognition whatsoever to gay couples, the country wouldn't be dealing with the concept of gay "marriage" because there would have already been sufficiently robust civil partnership arrangements - available to everyone, and essentially what civil marriage is now - and wouldn't be facing the specter of having the government start forcing churches to recognize gay marriages.
You don't protect your house from a raging river by standing in front of it with a STOP sign. You protect your house by redirecting the river's flow. Social conservatives think they can sit athwart the current of culture and make it stop. They cannot, and as a result, their houses are in danger of being swept away.
To the extent that social conservatives want to fit society to their own Procrustean bed, they are merely a fun-house reflection of liberals.
-
Social issues have been, and will continue to be, the death of the republican party because, for one thing, the social issue positions demanded by the social conservatives are, if viewed objectively, anathema to the principles of individual liberty and freedom that this country was founded on.
In point of fact, if it hadn't been for the social conservatives' fascist insistence on denying any recognition whatsoever to gay couples, the country wouldn't be dealing with the concept of gay "marriage" because there would have already been sufficiently robust civil partnership arrangements - available to everyone, and essentially what civil marriage is now - and wouldn't be facing the specter of having the government start forcing churches to recognize gay marriages.
You don't protect your house from a raging river by standing in front of it with a STOP sign. You protect your house by redirecting the river's flow. Social conservatives think they can sit athwart the current of culture and make it stop. They cannot, and as a result, their houses are in danger of being swept away.
To the extent that social conservatives want to fit society to their own Procrustean bed, they are merely a fun-house reflection of liberals.
Nice post. I might have shied away from the term 'fascist', as I want to engage them and not drive them off, but I can't argue your theme or the logic.
-
Nice post. I might have shied away from the term 'fascist', as I want to engage them and not drive them off, but I can't argue your theme or the logic.
I usually prefer to avoid it as well, both because it's inflammatory on its own and because I think it applies more appropriately to the left - fascism has historically risen from union leftist-authoritarian sources - but I chose to use it here precisely because of it's inflammatory value: to make a point painfully obvious.
-
It's quite the pity that, minus SoCons, Republicans don't have the votes to win dog catcher. The best the party can do is tell them to "STFU or get out of the party," then act surprised when they do.
How many posts on this thread decry SoCons because they have chosen to sit out elections or vote third party, because they were told to STFU or get out of the party? I'm more of a FisCon sort of guy, but I know we need SoCons or we lose.
My takeaway observation: "Most Republicans would rather lose without SoCons than win with them."
Good luck with that.
-
It's quite the pity that, minus SoCons, Republicans don't have the votes to win dog catcher. The best the party can do is tell them to "STFU or get out of the party," then act surprised when they do.
How many posts on this thread decry SoCons because they have chosen to sit out elections or vote third party, because they were told to STFU or get out of the party? I'm more of a FisCon sort of guy, but I know we need SoCons or we lose.
My takeaway observation: "Most Republicans would rather lose without SoCons than win with them."
Good luck with that.
Good luck having to sanctify gay marriages in your churches under the liberal/democrat government you are thereby electing. Good luck with that.
-
I want somebody to give me an in depth definition of a social conservative and I don't mean the wikileaks version...make that anon-judgmental to.
-
Good luck having to sanctify gay marriages in your churches under the liberal/democrat government you are thereby electing. Good luck with that.
False dichotomy. I didn't say it was all one or all the other. I'm just saying when you start kicking people out of the party in hopes of attracting new people, you lose. For every 5 SoCals who leave, you'll get 2-3 new members to replace them. You'll need more than luck when you hemorrhage that many voters.
You can't tell people to STFU and then expect them to vote for your people because there's nowhere else to go. That's my point, from start to finish. Nothing more.
-
I want somebody to give me an in depth definition of a social conservative and I don't mean the wikileaks version...make that anon-judgmental to.
I agree with you about defining the terms. To some, it seems "SoCons" means "rigid-minded ideologues hell-bent on making us lose."
Someone should scrounge up some of what Reagan had to say about them. He found a way to include them without insulting them in the process.
-
You can't tell people to STFU and then expect them to vote for your people because there's nowhere else to go. That's my point, from start to finish. Nothing more.
And it is a VERY good one indeed!
:sword:
-
What various definitions of conservatism turn out to be, won't help to drive the center-right coalition to win elections.
Contemporary conservatism needs to go back to the 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s and see WHAT WORKED.
Ronald Reagan worked, that is what. He could synthesize the elements, into a WINNING coalition.
Intellectuals called it Fusionism. It WORKED.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusionism
(As I've said repeatedly, we seem to have lost our "institutional memories," and unfortunately need to start over. We already know what works, but we forgot it.)
-
It's quite the pity that, minus SoCons, Republicans don't have the votes to win dog catcher. The best the party can do is tell them to "STFU or get out of the party," then act surprised when they do.
How many posts on this thread decry SoCons because they have chosen to sit out elections or vote third party, because they were told to STFU or get out of the party? I'm more of a FisCon sort of guy, but I know we need SoCons or we lose.
My takeaway observation: "Most Republicans would rather lose without SoCons than win with them."
Good luck with that.
What can Socons win without Republicans?
-
Nice post. I might have shied away from the term 'fascist', as I want to engage them and not drive them off, but I can't argue your theme or the logic.
Squishy... RINOs... quislings...
No one has clean hands in this debate.
-
False dichotomy. I didn't say it was all one or all the other. I'm just saying when you start kicking people out of the party in hopes of attracting new people, you lose. For every 5 SoCals who leave, you'll get 2-3 new members to replace them. You'll need more than luck when you hemorrhage that many voters.
You can't tell people to STFU and then expect them to vote for your people because there's nowhere else to go. That's my point, from start to finish. Nothing more.
Of True Scotsmen and Real Conservatives (http://thelastwire.wordpress.com/2014/06/09/of-true-scotsmen-and-real-conservatives/)
-
What can Socons win without Republicans?
Zero. Not a thing. Nothing. It's a symbiotic relationship, neither will live long without the other. That's my point, neither can afford to kick the other out.
-
Of True Scotsmen and Real Conservatives (http://thelastwire.wordpress.com/2014/06/09/of-true-scotsmen-and-real-conservatives/)
That's a great article. Thanks for creating it.
-
Of True Scotsmen and Real Conservatives (http://thelastwire.wordpress.com/2014/06/09/of-true-scotsmen-and-real-conservatives/)
Great article.
-
I want somebody to give me an in depth definition of a social conservative and I don't mean the wikileaks version...make that anon-judgmental to.
A very difficult thing to do, just as it is with fiscal conservatism where tax policy and debt issues frequently clash. Social conservatives for right or wrong are currently at least viewed by many as two-issue voters, same-sex marriage and abortion. They are viewed as wanting those two issues to be campaign themes even though they understand most polling doesn't favor their positions. Immigration is an issue so-cons are frequently associated with, though I don't think it's as deeply embedded as the other two. They are seen as having strong religious roots and for the most part tend to vote in blocks.
But truth be told, there are probably no two exactly alike, and I believe many cross over into the fiscal and national defense areas of conservatism. In the past they've been strong supporters of the Republican Party and its values, and I for one would hate to see them go. But by putting those issues of importance to them on the back burner, it just may cause an irreparable split.
But that's simply my take, and I don't qualify to make such judgments. I'd rather see social conservatives defining their ideology. I just know that principles and issues don't always go hand-in-hand.
-
Of True Scotsmen and Real Conservatives (http://thelastwire.wordpress.com/2014/06/09/of-true-scotsmen-and-real-conservatives/)
Does put a little perspective into it.
-
I want somebody to give me an in depth definition of a social conservative and I don't mean the wikileaks version...make that anon-judgmental to.
That my dear is the crux of the problem! No one can or will define it because there is no single definition possible!
I would call my self a Social Conservative but in reality I'm a mixture all of the following: Conservative, small “l” libertarian, paleoconservative, Krystolian neoconservative and Country Club Republican with the percentages of each varying from time to time.
Don't think I'm all that unusual either!
-
Does put a little perspective into it.
Luis is good that way. Sometimes it's a cold, hard slap across the face, but he always delivers what's needed. It's why I missed him over the years and was happy to find him here on TBR.
-
That my dear is the crux of the problem! No one can or will define it because there is no single definition possible!
I would call my self a Social Conservative but in reality I'm a mixture all of the following: Conservative, small “l” libertarian, paleoconservative, Krystolian neoconservative and Country Club Republican with the percentages of each varying from time to time.
Don't think I'm all that unusual either!
You forgot "Pastafarian." it's a pretty big tent...
:grouphug: :terror:
-
That my dear is the crux of the problem! No one can or will define it because there is no single definition possible!
I would call my self a Social Conservative but in reality I'm a mixture all of the following: Conservative, small “l” libertarian, paleoconservative, Krystolian neoconservative and Country Club Republican with the percentages of each varying from time to time.
Don't think I'm all that unusual either!
I consider myself to be a fiscal conservative and a social libertarian.
I want a much smaller government footprint - and I want the government staying the hell out of my business and my private life!
More power to the States and less power to the Feds.
-
You forgot "Pastafarian." it's a pretty big tent...
:grouphug: :terror:
LOL! I guess so!
-
I consider myself to be a fiscal conservative and a social libertarian.
I want a much smaller government footprint - and I want the government staying the hell out of my business and my private life!
More power to the States and less power to the Feds.
No matter what the percentages of each are at any given time Alice the highest percentage will ALWAYS be on the side of CONSTITUTIONAL government which means that the federal government is confined to doing ONLY those things it is charged with doing and not a smidgen more!
-
Luis is good that way. Sometimes it's a cold, hard slap across the face, but he always delivers what's needed. It's why I missed him over the years and was happy to find him here on TBR.
Yes, though we've had our moments. Nonetheless, I respect him tremendously and yes he certainly adds value to any site he's on. But don't tell him I said that. :nometalk:
-
No matter what the percentages of each are at any given time Alice the highest percentage will ALWAYS be on the side of CONSTITUTIONAL government which means that the federal government is confined to doing ONLY those things it is charged with doing and not a smidgen more!
Yes, Bigun - Constitutional Conservatives!
The social issues are red herrings - it's the government overreach that spawned the Tea Party - and THAT has to be the issue that ties us all together. We've got to stop arguing about the other stuff and get ourselves in office before we can even get a chance to address anything else. I think most of us agree that what we have in common is a desire to see the Federal Government be severely cut down to the size that was intended by our Constitution.
-
I want somebody to give me an in depth definition of a social conservative and I don't mean the wikileaks version...make that anon-judgmental to.
Collectivist authoritarianism with a tinge of direct democracy socialism when it benefits the cause.
-
Luis is good that way. Sometimes it's a cold, hard slap across the face, but he always delivers what's needed. It's why I missed him over the years and was happy to find him here on TBR.
Amen, brother. :beer: We're in total agreement there!
Took a sabbatical for a time...but he found his way back. People that gave him a hard time, for a spell, are long gone!
-
Shit!
What'd I miss?
I had 2 weeks developing a Powerpoint presentation for two classes at the same day and time. I was just cracking under pressure.
-
Collectivist authoritarianism with a tinge of direct democracy socialism when it benefits the cause.
"Collectivist Authoritarianism?" I think that might be a little harsh, Luis. There certainly is a tinge of told-you-so moralism in there, and that can lead to authoritarianism (nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!). I think most who call themselves SoCons would settle for not having their beliefs openly mocked and discriminated against. The ones that I know who are authoritarian are kooks (think Westboro Baptist Church. Kooks who hurt people by openly mocking the beliefs of others). This "Gay Marriage" train under discussion recently left the station a long time ago.
The broad brush rarely paints accurately, no matter who wields it.
-
I had 2 weeks developing a Powerpoint presentation for two classes at the same day and time. I was just cracking under pressure.
I should point out that whatever sins you feel you may have committed in that brief moment in time have long been forgiven by your friends. Now, when you get a break, have a beer. You are among friends.
:beer:
-
I should point out that whatever sins you feel you may have committed in that brief moment in time have long been forgiven by your friends. Now, when you get a break, have a beer. You are among friends.
:beer:
Indeed!
-
I should point out that whatever sins you feel you may have committed in that brief moment in time have long been forgiven by your friends. Now, when you get a break, have a beer. You are among friends.
:beer:
You know CL...I am so glad you decided to join here..we have sooo many great minds here and you fit in here so nicely...
...
-
Yes, Bigun - Constitutional Conservatives!
The social issues are red herrings - it's the government overreach that spawned the Tea Party - and THAT has to be the issue that ties us all together. We've got to stop arguing about the other stuff and get ourselves in office before we can even get a chance to address anything else. I think most of us agree that what we have in common is a desire to see the Federal Government be severely cut down to the size that was intended by our Constitution.
We can do that without telling people who call themselves "SoCons" to eff off. We must, or we'll lose. We're getting there, but we have to be wary of people who think kicking the TEA Party to the curb is a great idea. I wish we had anybody but McConnell for possible Majority Leader. I'll give him this: He understands the parliamentary rules of the Senate better than anybody, and that's useful.
-
You know CL...I am so glad you decided to join here..we have sooo many great minds here and you fit in here so nicely...
...
I always thought of myself as an unserious person....
-
"Collectivist Authoritarianism?" I think that might be a little harsh, Luis. There certainly is a tinge of told-you-so moralism in there, and that can lead to authoritarianism (nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!). I think most who call themselves SoCons would settle for not having their beliefs openly mocked and discriminated against. The ones that I know who are authoritarian are kooks (think Westboro Baptist Church. Kooks who hurt people by openly mocking the beliefs of others). This "Gay Marriage" train under discussion recently left the station a long time ago.
The broad brush rarely paints accurately, no matter who wields it.
Yes, collectivist authoritarianism via socialist direct democracy.
The fight to stop SSM from becoming legal (from the SoCon side) centers around referendums, propositions and ballot initiatives where whether same sex couples should have the right and ability to marry one another is decided via majority vote (direct democracy). In other words, the majority should be able to decide whether or not that right exists.
Our system of government is designed to protect the individual (every individual so in turn, minorities) against the power of an omnipotent Majority.
Rights exist. They can't be voted into existence, but they can be violated via a majority vote via legislative tyranny at the bequest of an Omnipotent Majority.
Collectivist authoritarianism with a healthy side of socialism (direct democracy).
-
Yes, collectivist authoritarianism via socialist direct democracy.
The fight to stop SSM from becoming legal (from the SoCon side) centers around referendums, propositions and ballot initiatives where whether same sex couples should have the right and ability to marry one another is decided via majority vote (direct democracy). In other words, the majority should be able to decide whether or not that right exists.
Our system of government is designed to protect the individual (every individual so in turn, minorities) against the power of an omnipotent Majority.
Rights exists, they can't be voted into existence,. but they can be violated via a majority vote via legislative tyranny.
Collectivist authoritarianism with a healthy side of socialism (direct democracy).
Your formula cannot be denied. Makes sense. Now, if we can get them to understand the basic natural rights to property and self-defense.
-
Yes, collectivist authoritarianism via socialist direct democracy.
The fight to stop SSM from becoming legal (from the SoCon side) centers around referendums, propositions and ballot initiatives where whether same sex couples should have the right and ability to marry one another is decided via majority vote (direct democracy). In other words, the majority should be able to decide whether or not that right exists.
Our system of government is designed to protect the individual (every individual so in turn, minorities) against the power of an omnipotent Majority.
Rights exist. They can't be voted into existence, but they can be violated via a majority vote via legislative tyranny at the bequest of an Omnipotent Majority.
Collectivist authoritarianism with a healthy side of socialism (direct democracy).
I must add....the only reason the SoCons are trying to bring the power of the State into the SSM issue is because the State is in the business of licensing any Marriages, same-sex or otherwise. I think we can agree that ought not to be the situation. Marriage is more of a contract than a religious ritual, and out to be understood as such.
And I say that as an unserious poster.
-
Your formula cannot be denied. Makes sense. Now, if we can get them to understand the basic natural rights to property and self-defense.
What Is Law?
What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.
Each of us has a natural right — from God — to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties? If every person has the right to defend even by force — his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right — its reason for existing, its lawfulness — is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force — for the same reason — cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.
Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, contrary to our premise. Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces?
If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all.
A Just and Enduring Government
If a nation were founded on this basis, it seems to me that order would prevail among the people, in thought as well as in deed. It seems to me that such a nation would have the most simple, easy to accept, economical, limited, nonoppressive, just, and enduring government imaginable — whatever its political form might be.
Under such an administration, everyone would understand that he possessed all the privileges as well as all the responsibilities of his existence. No one would have any argument with government, provided that his person was respected, his labor was free, and the fruits of his labor were protected against all unjust attack. When successful, we would not have to thank the state for our success. And, conversely, when unsuccessful, we would no more think of blaming the state for our misfortune than would the farmers blame the state because of hail or frost. The state would be felt only by the invaluable blessings of safety provided by this concept of government.
It can be further stated that, thanks to the non-intervention of the state in private affairs, our wants and their satisfactions would develop themselves in a logical manner. We would not see poor families seeking literary instruction before they have bread. We would not see cities populated at the expense of rural districts, nor rural districts at the expense of cities. We would not see the great displacements of capital, labor, and population that are caused by legislative decisions.
The sources of our existence are made uncertain and precarious by these state-created displacements. And, furthermore, these acts burden the government with increased responsibilities.
The Complete Perversion of the Law
But, unfortunately, law by no means confines itself to its proper functions. And when it has exceeded its proper functions, it has not done so merely in some inconsequential and debatable matters. The law has gone further than this; it has acted in direct opposition to its own purpose. The law has been used to destroy its own objective: It has been applied to annihilating the justice that it was supposed to maintain; to limiting and destroying rights which its real purpose was to respect. The law has placed the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty, and property of others. It has converted plunder into a right, in order to protect plunder. And it has converted lawful defense into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense.
How has this perversion of the law been accomplished? And what have been the results?
The law has been perverted by the influence of two entirely different causes: stupid greed and false philanthropy. Let us speak of the first.
A Fatal Tendency of Mankind
Self-preservation and self-development are common aspirations among all people. And if everyone enjoyed the unrestricted use of his faculties and the free disposition of the fruits of his labor, social progress would be ceaseless, uninterrupted, and unfailing.
But there is also another tendency that is common among people. When they can, they wish to live and prosper at the expense of others. This is no rash accusation. Nor does it come from a gloomy and uncharitable spirit. The annals of history bear witness to the truth of it: the incessant wars, mass migrations, religious persecutions, universal slavery, dishonesty in commerce, and monopolies. This fatal desire has its origin in the very nature of man — in that primitive, universal, and insuppressible instinct that impels him to satisfy his desires with the least possible pain.
Property and Plunder
Man can live and satisfy his wants only by ceaseless labor; by the ceaseless application of his faculties to natural resources. This process is the origin of property.
But it is also true that a man may live and satisfy his wants by seizing and consuming the products of the labor of others. This process is the origin of plunder.
Now since man is naturally inclined to avoid pain — and since labor is pain in itself — it follows that men will resort to plunder whenever plunder is easier than work. History shows this quite clearly. And under these conditions, neither religion nor morality can stop it.
When, then, does plunder stop? It stops when it becomes more painful and more dangerous than labor.
It is evident, then, that the proper purpose of law is to use the power of its collective force to stop this fatal tendency to plunder instead of to work. All the measures of the law should protect property and punish plunder.
But, generally, the law is made by one man or one class of men. And since law cannot operate without the sanction and support of a dominating force, this force must be entrusted to those who make the laws.
This fact, combined with the fatal tendency that exists in the heart of man to satisfy his wants with the least possible effort, explains the almost universal perversion of the law. Thus it is easy to understand how law, instead of checking injustice, becomes the invincible weapon of injustice. It is easy to understand why the law is used by the legislator to destroy in varying degrees among the rest of the people, their personal independence by slavery, their liberty by oppression, and their property by plunder. This is done for the benefit of the person who makes the law, and in proportion to the power that he holds.
The Law - Frederic Bastiat
-
May I have a moment?
-
You just turned me on to Frédéric Bastiat. I am in awe. I'd never heard of him. There is a good chance you may not see me again for awhile. There is some heavy thinking there, and I simply must consume.
http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html (http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html)
-
You just turned me on to Frédéric Bastiat. I am in awe. I'd never heard of him. There is a good chance you may not see me again for awhile. There is some heavy thinking there, and I simply must consume.
http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html (http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html)
"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it."
Frederic Bastiat
-
Thanks! I just Kindled the book, will be reading it for a while....
-
Thanks! I just Kindled the book, will be reading it for a while....
Happy reading.
-
I should point out that whatever sins you feel you may have committed in that brief moment in time have long been forgiven by your friends. Now, when you get a break, have a beer. You are among friends.
:beer:
Thanks