lighting up - common ground?

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/22/give-pot-a-chance/?nl=opinion&am...

Do libertarians really meet up here (maybe even hang out and light up) as is sometimes claimed? Or is this deceptive?

This guy thinks it should be easier for Obama because he once inhaled. I think it would make it harder for him.

Looking forward to the day when it's legal in New York--at the least it should be medically legal nationwide. Many people believe with good reason that marijuana helps people survive their cancer treatments.

I think it is harder for President Obama because he is black. There are stereotypes that he does better to avoid.

#3: That bullshit story of yours doesn't really gel very well with the fact that Obama campaigned on respecting state medical marijuana laws in 2008 and went back on his promise as soon as he got into office. That wasn't "because he is black," which is every fucking retard's excuse for why not everyone's in lockstep with Dear Leader. It's because he's full of shit.

Lunar you seem much angrier after the election. Was it the election or did something else happen?

#5: Actually, I don't think I would necessarily take the use of profanity as a measure of emotional state. More often than not I haven't even decided where I want to place the profanity until after I've typed out the gist of the post rather than any kind of stream-of-consciousness. It's moreso a measure of how idiotic I find a statement to be (as anyone who has read my profanity-laden responses in religion topics can attest to). And like I said in the "Obama Reelected" discussion, there's nothing like a successful election to get the winning side to make some really idiotic statements. As for the election itself, I know there's no difference between Romney-D and Romney-R. The only aggravating thing about the election is when their supporters act like there is a difference.

But the measure of whether there's a difference depends totally on what you consider important. For someone who doesn't want the Affordable Care Act to be repealed, there's a huge difference between Obama and Romney.

#6: That depends on how much pigshit you've eaten on the desireability of forcing everyone to become the customers of corporate healthcare. If it had been the Republicans proposing it, you'd be characterizing it entirely differently, so don't tell me there's a difference.

The Republicans did propose it when the Clinton's had their go-around with health care and I'd prefer a system where gov't guaranteed and paid for truly universal health care but the ACA is better than nothing.

But it's just an example. Pick another one. If you think that the rich should pay a higher proportion of taxes than they do now, then there's a clear difference. Now I know that you don't think that anyone should pay taxes so it doesn't make a difference to you, but I'm wondering if you can actually see the world through someone else's eyes.

I heard that a lot during the election, mainly online when I was reading certain fringe egghead pundits who tried to make a virtue out of indecision, doctrinal purity, and irresponsibility, but I can not understand how someone can say that there was no difference between the candidates. It's just so obvious to me that there were differences. Obamacare is one obvious example. Republicans did not want a government takeover of medicine.

Here's a good book for you to read about the history of liberalism. Read it and tell me there's no difference in the parties.

I Am The Change: Barack Obama And The Crisis Of Liberalism

Marijuana should be legal.

However, if it was made legal, many companies would refuse to hire or employ users, on the grounds of higher medical costs. This would be legal per prior precedents.

Granted, it would be a step forward; instead of the government using force against users, it would be private industry using economic sanctions against users.

#9: If you think that the rich should pay a higher proportion of taxes than they do now, then there's a clear difference. Now I know that you don't think that anyone should pay taxes so it doesn't make a difference to you, but I'm wondering if you can actually see the world through someone else's eyes.

Well, yes, looking through others' eyes I do realize that a lot of people are motivated by wedge issues such as which tax bracket should pay what. But even if Obama did follow up on such a campaign promise, what's the difference? The US already collects and prints a shitload of revenue and you don't seem to be satisfied yet. I mean, you can keep picking and choosing issues all you want, but how many of them really have to do with who's in the oval office?

A really good reason to "Legalize it". A lady environmentalist who tried to protect virgin Mexican forests from being denuded by cartel drug growers was killed along with her 10 year old daughter.

The potential of a huge tax base and the only way to truly eliminate that sort of crime - by removing the profit. Other drugs might fill the gap but it would narrow the focus for enforcement agencies. Jeez Mexico sure reads like the "wild west" now.

#13

Of course, a major pharma company would just ruin her reputation and economically destroy such people if they required additional lands. That's a bit better, I guess.

I'm all in favor of legilization, but that's going to bring its own set of problems; it's not free money. But I think the new problems will be less damaging than the old ones.

It's ironic that while marijuana is being decriminalized, tobacco use is increasingly restricted. Maybe in 10 years it will be illegal to light up- a cigarette. Pot? No problem.

Really, I don't see how marijuana is any worse than tobacco and alcohol. It's less addictive than tobacco, and causes fewer social problems than alcohol. If those two drugs are legal, marijuana should be too.

I think it was Tip O'Neill who said that all politics were personal, and there is something to that. A few years ago, I voted for Lisa Murkowski (R) for two reasons. First, she actually had a brain in her head, but also because when I have a visa issue on one of my Russia trips, her office called the Soviet Embassy, and I got a call from them the next day, telling me the visa was ready. (His exact words, with thick Russian accent, were, "Visa on bottom of pile. Take visa out. Put on top pile. Is in mail today.)

As to Obama, I am a Dem, so it was not a stretch, given the choice, but the deciding factor was that my two children, who both work, are only insured because of ObamaCare. They are 22 and 24, and as I said, both have semi full-time jobs, with no insurance. But they are on my policy. For now. So my daughter can continue to to rock climb.

Was it a choice between the forces of darkness and the forces of light? Obviously not. But it was a choice, and I am happy how it turned out. And given that we will not see the forces of light in politics anytime soon, I am kind of happy with what we did get.

>15 by @madpoet, Really, I don't see how marijuana is any worse than tobacco and alcohol. It's less addictive than tobacco, and causes fewer social problems than alcohol. If those two drugs are legal, marijuana should be too.

Completely agreed. I've never smoked anything, and drink next to nothing (most of it is nasty), and will never use pot, either. But it is certainly no worse than tobacco or alcohol and it's absurd that they keep it illegal and have such harsh penalties for it.

Well, it depends on how you define 'no worse'. As a former regular potsmoker, I'd have to say that I'd trust someone who smoked a cigarette and then got in a car and drove before I'd trust soemone who took a hit off a joint or bowl and then did the same.

>16 Arctic-Stranger: when I have a visa issue on one of my Russia trips, her office called the Soviet Embassy, and I got a call from them the next day

One of the reasons Senator Jesse Helms was so unassailable in North Carolina was that he had an absolutely fantastic team on the ground to handle requests from his constituents. A friend of mine (not a republican) had an issue getting a passport because her name was spelled differently on her birth certificate than her driver's license, so she ended up calling his office and they walked the application through so that she had it in a matter of days. Helms' rep was solid gold on that front.

>18 Crypto-Willobie:. Sure. But how is that worse than driving drunk? At least the pot smoker will be driving verrrrry slowly. ;-)

And probably not subject to road rage.

20> Oh that brings back memories.

> 20 Agreed; not worse than driving drunk, but similar and so, undesirable.
Time and a place.

When I was a teen ager we refered to a study that had been hushed up, because it showed that people who were stoned drove more safely than people who were not stoned.

Of course, going 35 in a 55 zone may constitute a hazard.
As does waiting for the stop sign to change.

Street cops tended to prefer pot-heads to drunks; the latter tended to go out and get into fights and accidents, generating work; the former stayed inside and stared at test patterns while eating. Less work, less paperwork, and less upset civilians = win.

I'm feeling a little hungry... is there such a thing as a pot flashback?

Obama drank, smoked marijuana, smoked cigarettes, and did cocaine. Why wouldn't he be in favor legalization?

Oh, yeah…it's better to vote for the "cool" guy than the "square" squeaky clean Mormon Romney.

Actually, it was better to vote for the candidate who best represented your views.

Which, btw, is what most people did. So, either Romney lost because the values you attribute to him are no longer held by a majority of Americans; or he lost because the values he espoused were not the values he truly believed, and people realized that.

I think the former. This is certainly not my parents' America. Nor is it the country I grew up in.

The worse for all of us.

>29 barney67:: It is true pity that you view the changing demographic landscape as a negative. It is a true pity that for you, the loss of WASP hegemony is "worse for all of us".

Save your faux-pity. I never said anything about the changes meaning changes in demographics. Or WASP hegemony (as if such a thing ever existed.) What makes you think I'm a WASP?

The country is definitely not the country my parents knew and far from what I experienced as a boy. It is sad that this is so.

> 32
Yeah, oh for the days when the coloreds and the queers knew their places...

See, that's immediately where you go, blacks and gays, as if there can't possibly be any other changes.

Well, there are some changes I don't like either, but a LOT of people when they wish for their Dad's America it's one of the primary things they have in mind..

Someone told me that Michelle Obama's favorite character on Leave It to Beaver is Whitey...

#38--nice find.

here is an extract from the republican party platform for that year.

Labor

Under the Republican Administration, as our country has prospered, so have its people. This is as it should be, for as President Eisenhower said: "Labor is the United States. The men and women, who with their minds, their hearts and hands, create the wealth that is shared in this country—they are America."

The Eisenhower Administration has brought to our people the highest employment, the highest wages and the highest standard of living ever enjoyed by any nation. Today there are nearly 67 million men and women at work in the United States, 4 million more than in 1952. Wages have increased substantially over the past 3 1/2 years; but, more important, the American wage earner today can buy more than ever before for himself and his family because his pay check has not been eaten away by rising taxes and soaring prices.

The record of performance of the Republican Administration on behalf of our working men and women goes still further. The Federal minimum wage has been raised for more than 2 million workers. Social Security has been extended to an additional 10 million workers and the benefits raised for 6 1/2 million. The protection of unemployment insurance has been brought to 4 million additional workers. There have been increased workmen's compensation benefits for longshoremen and harbor workers, increased retirement benefits for railroad employees, and wage increases and improved welfare and pension plans for federal employees.

In addition, the Eisenhower Administration has enforced more vigorously and effectively than ever before, the laws which protect the working standards of our people.

Workers have benefited by the progress which has been made in carrying out the programs and principles set forth in the 1952 Republican platform. All workers have gained and unions have grown in strength and responsibility, and have increased their membership by 2 millions.

Furthermore, the process of free collective bargaining has been strengthened by the insistence of this Administration that labor and management settle their differences at the bargaining table without the intervention of the Government. This policy has brought to our country an unprecedented period of labor-management peace and understanding.

We applaud the effective, unhindered, collective bargaining which brought an early end to the 1956 steel strike, in contrast to the six months' upheaval, Presidential seizure of the steel industry and ultimate Supreme Court intervention under the last Democrat Administration.

The Eisenhower Administration will continue to fight for dynamic and progressive programs which, among other things, will:

Stimulate improved job safety of our workers, through assistance to the States, employees and employers;

Continue and further perfect its programs of assistance to the millions of workers with special employment problems, such as older workers, handicapped workers, members of minority groups, and migratory workers;

Strengthen and improve the Federal-State Employment Service and improve the effectiveness of the unemployment insurance system;

Protect by law, the assets of employee welfare and benefit plans so that workers who are the beneficiaries can be assured of their rightful benefits;

Assure equal pay for equal work regardless of Sex;

Clarify and strengthen the eight-hour laws for the benefit of workers who are subject to federal wage standards on Federal and Federally-assisted construction, and maintain and continue the vigorous administration of the Federal prevailing minimum wage law for public supply contracts;

Extend the protection of the Federal minimum wage laws to as many more workers as is possible and practicable;

Continue to fight for the elimination of discrimination in employment because of race, creed, color, national origin, ancestry or sex;

Provide assistance to improve the economic conditions of areas faced with persistent and substantial unemployment;

Revise and improve the Taft-Hartley Act so as to protect more effectively the rights of labor unions, management, the individual worker, and the public. The protection of the right of workers to organize into unions and to bargain collectively is the firm and permanent policy of the Eisenhower Administration. In 1954, 1955 and again in 1956, President Eisenhower recommended constructive amendments to this Act. The Democrats in Congress have consistently blocked these needed changes by parliamentary maneuvers. The Republican Party pledges itself to overhaul and improve the Taft-Hartley Act along the lines of these recommendations.

I could post the health education and welfare portion if you want. but I trhink I have made my point what a lot of people miss about the 1950's is its Republican party. What happened to it?

>38ff: I'd also point out that the highest marginal tax rate under the Republican Eisenhower administration was 91% (on incomes over $3.3 million, as adjusted for inflation to 2009). There were 24 tax brackets (rather than 6 today), and in 19 of those 24, the marginal tax rate was higher than today's highest rate of 35% -- kicking in at about $200,000, in 2009 dollars.

In other words, the tax structure for most Americans (i.e. making less than $200,000 per annum in today's dollars) wasn't all that different -- but it was vastly different for the small percentage at the top making very large amounts of money.

(Source: Tax Policy Center -- PDF)

~4

"That bullshit story of yours ..... which is every fucking retard's excuse..."

Objective observers might note that Lunar's rationality and vocabulary choice are not improving with time.

35 -- Oh, bull. "A lot people," huh? You don't know that. It's just a prejudice you picked up from the culture which despises the past.

No one ever thought Leave It To Beaver was a reflection of real life (it has always been a straw man for liberals to disparage the past and an excuse to alter the culture) any more than AMC's Mad Men is a real depiction of what the advertising industry used to be like. That show is a lie.

Yes...like all entertainment. Anyone who thought 'Happy Days' was an actualy reflection of the 50s was sadly mistaken, or honestly wanted to believe in something, rather than face the reality.

And yes, there have been other changes. The President can now assassinate Americans (as well as foreigners) without benefits of trial, arrest and torture foreigners, and hold them in prison until they die, unilaterally attack anyone, in any country, without Congress having the least oversight or input into the decision. These changes have been endorsed by Democrats and Republicans with little discussion or argument.

Meanwhile, despite a ever-growing groundswell of public opinion that the War on Drugs is a wasteful, destructive public policy, the current Administration, like the other Administrations preceeding it, Democratic and Republican , is set on maintaining marijuana as a Schedule 1 drug.

These are the changes I find problematic. They have little or nothing to do with party affiliation.

What are your gripes, deniro?

The President can now assassinate Americans (as well as foreigners) without benefits of trial, arrest and torture foreigners, and hold them in prison until they die, unilaterally attack anyone, in any country, without Congress having the least oversight or input into the decision.

I think what you mean to say, is the president can now legally do these things. They've been doing them "discreetly" for decades.

#47

Correction noted and accepted. And there's a big difference between doing something 'off the books' and simply declaring 'It's legal, because we say it is.' In the first case, there's an acknowledgement that what is being done is wrong; in the second, since it's legal it must be right.

Well, I think in the first case it was less that they acknowledged it as wrong than that they feared other people might be upset by it. And I think now they're trying to legitimize it as like a "we're admitting we'll do this, so you better behave!" kind of tactic. I'm not really sure which one is "better." I certainly don't support it in either case, that's for sure.

Oh, I think they knew it was wrong; you don't try to hide things that you're proud of, or consider business as usual. I agree that the possible reaction of other people also played a part, though.

And yes, in either case the actions are reprehensible. I tend to feel that attempting to convince other people that what you're doing is legal, and therefore right, is moreso; but in this matter, degrees of 'wrong' are mostly academic.

What are your gripes, deniro?

That conservatives are assumed to be racist.

A great many people who identify themselves as conservative appear (by actions and by their speech) to be racist. There's really not much you're going to be able to do about that. There's no 'seat of conservative doctrine' that has a final say on what is and is not conservative thought, and has the power to deny people the ability to claim to be conservative.

Unfortunate, but I think you're kind of stuck here.

~51

I think, deniro, that you perhaps need to ask yourself WHY that is a common assumption. Let me suggest some reasons why that may be so:

(1) Conservatives weren't exactly in the forefront of the Civil Rights Movement in this country. It has been correctly argued in this forum that Republicans were generally leaders in Congressional legislation on that topic, but when you got to the 1964 and 1965 Acts, that was no longer the case.

(2) Conservatives were traditionally (you will excuse the expression) in favor of unconditioned states rights, with a common example being the state's right to mandate segregation of the races. All that did was unnecessarily undermine the otherwise quite desirable notion of states rights as embodied in the 10th amendment.

(3) More recently, conservatives (you will recall Bush II, perhaps?) authorized things such as picking up virtually all Arab men in the United States who were not citizens for either "investigative holds" or "witness protection." NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING came out of those illegal acts, but I have never heard one conservative condemn them. Then there is Guantanamo and the little matter of conservative opposition to giving those held there ah, trials. You remember trials, don't you?

Apparently "contemporary conservatives" have a real problem focusing on all but one of the rights in the Bill of Rights - an obviously highly conserve-ative position.

(4) Need I mention immigration? Not immigration of Scandinavians or Brits or even Aussies, of course, but only immigration of those brown people.

One could go on, and, of course, there is an excuse for each of the above, but the old saying goes "if it quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, and looks like a duck ........ it may well be, ah, a duck."

52 -- "A great many people who identify themselves as conservative appear (by actions and by their speech) to be racist."

A great many? Like who? And which politicians?

There's such a thing as winning battles but losing wars. That knucklehead of a sherif from Maricopa county may be very popular where he's situated but the rest of the country sees him as way to the right of bizarre. The hispanic-american vote is the fast growing voting dynamic in the country--unfortunately for conservatives/republicans they decided to side with the 'minutemen' etc. in their war against mainly very impoverished Mexicans looking for a better life. Not much of a reach from minutemen to southwestern tea party activist. For two election cycles now democrats in the southwest have turned the tables in the southwestern part of the United States because of this. At a certain point most people seem to get locked into voting habits. The GOP in all their non-wisdom have pretty much handed over the fastest growing voting dynamic to their arch-rivals for power. Thank Lou Dobbs or whoever but conservatives are going to have to work super hard now to get their foot back in the door with that--and at the same time not alienate the more reactionary parts of their base?--good luck with that. Whether or not this is rooted in racism the perception is there and the perception is there at practically every GOP event where finding black and brown faces is pretty much equivalent to looking for Elmo.

#54: A great many? Like who?

Well, in the 1950s, the country was divided between "liberals" and "conservatives" on the question of integration.

"Like who", you ask? Well, here's a typical conservative viewpoint:

The central question that emerges—and it is not a parliamentary question or a question that is answered by merely consulting a catalog of the rights of American citizens, born Equal—is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer is Yes—the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race. …
National Review believes that the South's premises are correct. ....

That of course, was 'Mr Conservative', William F. Buckley. Stone racist.

56 -- You find Buckley "typical" of conservatives? He's dead, you know. Ever know what the circulation of National Review is? I wonder how many people have even heard of Buckley. How old is that comment? Do you think he ever changed his mind? Have you ever changed your mind? Who is the wisest?

I'm not convinced that conservatives, in general, the majority, ever were racist. If you are going to choose selectively from the 1950s, you seem to have omitted the fact that the Southern Democrats were the real racists at the time. Or if you want to go back further, it was Lincoln, the first Republican, who was the champion of black freedom. Besides, we are talking about today. Whether today's Republican party and its 50 million voters are racist, while the other 50 million Democrats are not. Hard to belive unless you have been programmed to believe it. If you have been programmed, would you know it?

55 -- I don't know what your point about Mexicans is. Are you saying America has no right to control immigration? To control its own border? You know Europe is having trouble with immigration, and so is Scandanavia. Years ago, when I drove into Canada, there were armed guards at the gate. If I made a run for it, would they have shot me? America has a right to protect itself. To me, illegal immigrants have no rights. That's not racist. It's an expression of belief in law and order.

You favor perception over reality? I don't. Unless you're saying that Democrats are better at propaganda. I agree with that.

Finally at the end we reach what appears to be your main point: When you look at the Republican Party you see more white faces than black faces. I don't see how one can go from this to: it's because of racism. There are and have been black Republicans, both in and out of office (also writers, intellectuals, etc.). Republican politicians aren't saying: We don't want blacks here. If blacks choose not to run for office as a Republican, you're saying that's the Republican's fault? Why?

The Republican position is: We will not abandon you; we want you to have the freedom to live life as you see fit, not as the government wants you to live it. Remember how Lincoln fought for their freedom. Freedom is scary. A lot of people don't want it and are willing to give it up to liberal programs. The Republican platform is at odds with the Democrat platform of buying black votes through government programs. You call that racist. I don't. If there is a racist party, it's the Democrats, keeping blacks down and dependent rather than free.

35> 'Well, there are some changes I don't like either, but a LOT of people when they wish for their Dad's America it's one of the primary things they have in mind..'

And, thank you for assuming that I, a gay male, would have that sort of wish. Are snap judgements a staple in your daily regimen?

58 -- You brought it up yourself in 33: "Yeah, oh for the days when the coloreds and the queers knew their places..."

59> You need to get a new pair of glasses, sir. That statement was made by CW. My post was #32.

To tell the truth I was baiting K.J. a bit -- after viewing his library I was surprised that he felt nostalgic for the days when the courts and the police actively oppressed gay Americans.

61> As opposed to a time when the courts will allow corporations to buy elections? Or habeas corpus is nonexistent? Or the country invades other countries without cause, thereby causing the death of thousands of people? A time when rendition is commonplace and treated as necessary? A time when travel is restricted for those who end up on a 'list,' without cause? A time when the Supreme Court declares that torture is okay? A time when men would stand by while strangers touch their children in a way that would cause them to break the arm of any other person attempting to do so, just to board a plane? A time when a place like Gitmo exists without anyone raising the roof? Shall I continue? I can deal with homophobic issues, as I have all of my life. The issues I listed in this paragraph are far more substantial and should scare the hell out of anyone living there.

As for 'baiting KJ,' what passes as entertainment for a person is a strong measure of that person's level of maturity.

63> You mean the days when the US felt it was their right to overthrow South American gov'ts right and left?

I certainly don't think US foreign policy is any worst then it was then and probably overall it's better, at least under Democratic administrations. At least under Obama and Clinton the US managed to get agreement from the UN before intervening militarily in other countries (Afghanistan doesn't count since that was started before Obama).

63> The USA has a long and ugly history of stealing from other countries and murdering their leaders, when the in-place regime will not play their game. Nobody disputes this reality. One has only to read The Confessions of an Economic Hitman to gain some insight into this subject. That is something that has not changed over time, either and has expanded into two wars - Afghanistan and Iraq. Only a complete fool would believe that the US is in either location for the purposes of spreading 'Democracy.' With all of the things I mentioned in #62 one could logically suggest that before taking Democracy to the Middle East the USA should bring it to the USA. Has anyone on LT actually read the Patriot Act or any of the last seven Presidential Orders? And, do you believe that Bill Clinton was not informed of the CIA's extracurricular activities during his reign?

If the measure of a country's foreign policy is the perceptions held by those in other countries, then the USA's foreign policy is substantially worse than before. Friends I met from Milano, while in Houston, invited me to visit them and told me how well I would be received. That was twenty years ago. Today, I have to keep my last country of residence out of the conversation, in areas where I am not known. It is just playing safe to do so.

'I certainly don't think US foreign policy is any worst then it was then and probably overall it's better...'

I guess this depends on which end of the gun you hold. Do you think US overseas travelers are safer now? They are not. Do you believe your troops are safer, now that we have publicly stated that torture is okay? They are not. My partner can use his German passport to travel anywhere and he is welcomed. If I use my USA passport I know that this will place us in danger, in many areas of the world, so it is not a preferred travel tool. At this time, it is the worst passport for a Westerner to be carrying. That is a reality and speaks volumes about the decline in US foreign policy effectiveness. It doesn't help when a young president promises to stop many of the atrocities initiated by his predecessor and then does nothing. No one believes that Obama ever wanted to close Gitmo anymore than we believed that he was going to repeal the Patriot Act. He lied, but that is something he does well, just like his predecessors. The USA has no credibility anymore and now that Israel is doing some saber-rattling we feel that a real horror will unfold in the Middle East, which US citizens can watch from a safe distance, with the same detachment they have had for their own returning troops, both alive and dead, while those of us with front-row seats will have to deal with the fallout.

53 "A great many? Like who? And which politicians?" What is this some sort of variation on the true Scotsman trick. "Ah they might say they are conservative, but a real conservative is a politician not just a registered voter."

Shrug, ok so O'Reilly and Coulter and Limbaugh don't count because they are not real conservatives. I can agree to that, they are after all really entertainers pretending to be reactionaries to push radical ideas." Just as so many republicans after Ronald Reagans time have.
and off course I wont hold the politicians guilty of racism for not denouncing such people. All Politicians survive by such sins of omission.
hmmm how about Representative Geoff Davis? Perhaps do you not think that referring to Mr Obama as "that boy" make him appear by his speech to be racist, but I certainly do.

45> "No one ever thought Leave It To Beaver was a reflection of real life", and neither for that matter is Bill O'Reillys show. but where exactly does what Beaver says in that strip divert from reality?

57> Buckley? Well conservatives are resistant to change.

"To me, illegal immigrants have no rights. That's not racist. It's an expression of belief in law and order."

Rather the opposite to deny the rights of a non citizen. is to deny not only Americas law and constitution. but the laws and constitutions of even the most corrupt regimes. i can think of no country that does not pay at least lip service to the rights of the non citizen.

How anyone can claim that rights are not inalienable and that such a claim expresses a belief in law and order is beyond me. Are you sure you are a True conservative? If so you are a sorry lot.

There was a time when America wouldn't invade other countries without cause?

>57 barney67: The issue in Arizona was not that illegal immigrants were being discriminated against, but rather that people - legal, law-abiding American citizens, could be pulled over and forced to show papers proving their citizenship simply for driving while not white. That should be offensive to any non-racist regardless of their political leanings.

67 -- You were the one who started "the true conservative" business. I don't where you got that. Look back and see if you weren't reading between the lines.

What are your gripes, deniro?

I have plenty. I couldn't possibly go into them all. One is that I keep getting called a racist because of how I vote. But someone a while back said I "just don't get it." Then tell me what it is I don't get. You tell me. Without going off on a tangent about Iraq or Afghanistan or immigration or Leave It to Beaver. You tell me what I don't get. You show me where the Republican Party is racist.

(Note: I have been using "conservative" and "Republican" interchangeably. Yes, I know it is imprecise, but there is no place for conservatives to go but the GOP. Besides, I'm interested in this election and past elections. You show me the racists. You tell me why blacks think the GOP is racist.)

18 -- "As a former regular potsmoker"

This explains a lot.

16 -- "I think it was Tip O'Neill who said that all politics were personal"

Tip O'Neill said "all politics is local." He didn't invent that idea. In fact, I doubt that he even believed it given his preference for national solutions to local ones.

"Politics is personal" comes from Sixties liberals, though they did not invent the term or idea either.

#70

There are places to go besides the Republican Party. Yes, you may feel those places are marginal, and your voice will not be heard. There is a difference between a perceived bad choice and no choice at all.

The Republican Party may not be racist per se; however, many of its adds and appeals to voters are perceived as both racist and classist, and many of its vocal supporters (Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, etc.) are also seen as being racist. It may not be fair to judge people by the company they keep; however, people do it, and you're not going to change that. And a group that covertly appeals to the racist vote and tendencies (remember Willie Horton?) is going to be judged by what it's saying, regardless of what it might actually be.

I'd say what you don't get is that in politics, it's a not a question of proof; it's a question of what people believe to be true. It doesn't matter if the Republican Party was as clean as the driven snow (it's not, btw); if people think it's racist, you aren't going to change their mind by offering facts.

I haven't called you a racist simply because you vote Republican; I have no idea what your personal ideas on such matters might be. (I may have some opinions as to your voting choices...) But if you openly support a group that many people think is suspect, complaining that people are pre-judging you is folly. They are wrong to do so, yes; but you're going to have to live with that.

If art is a lie which shows us the truth, then cartoons and comedians are liars who reveal uncomfortable truths in a comedic light.

73 -- What you are saying is that there's no room for the truth. I should simply accept a lie and live with it.

73 -- "It may not be fair to judge people by the company they keep"

You seem to think I should do so. I'm not convinced that the bulk of Republican "company" is racist. The platform is not. What exactly are we voting on?

I can play that game too: You have said not a word about the company liberals keep, about the despicable (yes, racist) things that they and their supporters say, the cheap shots of comedians and editorial writers, the dishonest and biased reporting by the networks. And they are the nice party? The compassionate and tolerant party? The humane party?

Sure.

45> No one ever thought Leave It To Beaver was a reflection of real life

Did you even read the cartoon? Leave It To Beaver was just the setting it wasn't the arguments.

I'll spell it out so you don't have to read it.
1. Conservatives believe the past, like the 50's, was better than now (you said something like that yourself, but probably more nuanced).
2. In the 50's the top marginal rate was 91%, so why are conservatives upset that Obama wants to raise them to 37%?

I've got to stop now, but the rest of the points were similar.

#74

No, I'm saying it's folly to continue to rail against human nature as if it's something you get to change. And that if you want to change people's opinions, you're going to have use emotional appeals, not factual ones.

#75

Party Platforms generally have as much relation to reality as any other advertising. They're not lies; rather, such statements accentuate the positive and ignore (as much as possible) the negative. (Sometimes this can be interesting, such as the Texas Republican Party opposing higher-order thinking skills in schools as a positive appeal.) So, using such a statement as evidence that the Republican Party does not appeal to racism is unconvincing.

You also seem to believe that I am a liberal, and should spring to their defense against your charges. Whereas my attitude is closer to 'A plague on both your houses'. Or that I should equally condemn the liberals, to be 'fair'. But we're not talking about how liberals may see things; we are discussing YOUR gripes about how you are perceived. (fwiw, I don't think that any liberals are in power, or are likely to be. Obama was merely slightly closer to the center in his appeal than Romney. On most major policy issues, there was little to no difference.) But again, defending yourself by saying 'Well, the other guys are just as bad!' does not refute the original charges.

But to address your final questions, I don't think that a party that imprisons people for life without a trial, attempts to forbid torture victims from testifying on the grounds that the torture techniques were classified, engages in warfare against other nations without prior declarations of war, supports embargoes of food and medicine, and numerous other offenses can justly be called nice, compassionate, tolerant, or humane. So, that applies to both the Democrats AND the Republicans. Did you really want to make the Republicans equally as bad as the Democrats?

I agree that emotional appeals are usually more effective than rational appeals, because it is in our nature to be guided more by emotion than reason. (but not always…) "Republicans are racist" is an accusation with no grounding in rationality.

However, I don't think the accusation "Republicans are racist" is simply the result of human nature. It is the result of a sometimes calculated attempt to control the dialogue and marginalize people you disagree with. The racism charge sticks. It works. That's why it keeps getting used. But it didn't use to (blacks after Lincoln voted Republican), so it can be changed.

Yes, I know you are one of those plague on both houses, burn it all down sort. I've known that for a long time. You refuse to use the imprecise labels in today's discourse, opting for what? geometrically perfect world views and definitions? I know all about the various definitions over the centuries and how terms change and parties change and circumstances change. Politics is the art of the possible.

So you think both the Republicans and Democrats are racist?

I guess we'll have to disagree on foreign policy. Interestingly, this seems to be a sticking point for everyone on this forum.

76 -- In many ways, the 50s was better. But not when it comes to tax rates. Everyone should pay their fair share. Everyone should pay something. If you want to raise the rate 3% on millionaires, I don't care. I'd never throw an election because of it. But that's a drop in the ocean compared to our debt.

You should also know that "tax and spend liberals" have a long past, despite Clinton declaring that "the era of big government is over" (Obama ignored that part). There's no point in raising taxes without cutting spending dramatically.

"In many ways, the 50s was better..."

Yes; if you were white, middle-class or higher, and mainstream. If you were black (or another minority), belonged to a 'suspect' group of any kind, or differed too much from the average...well, it was too bad, now wasn't it? Nostalgia for those times tends to come from people who either never lived through it (and have fond stories from people who did) or the people for whom life WAS good. For everyone else...

Neither party believes in small government. They just have slightly different ideas on where some of the money should be spent. So, it should be 'tax and spend' government, not any political affiliation.

#78

And if a party uses racist appeals (I noticed you ignored the 'Willie Horton' reference), then they get accused of being racist. That's very rational.

79> 76 -- In many ways, the 50s was better. But not when it comes to tax rates. Everyone should pay their fair share. Everyone should pay something. If you want to raise the rate 3% on millionaires, I don't care. I'd never throw an election because of it. But that's a drop in the ocean compared to our debt.

So tax rates isn't one of the things that you're nostalgic about. But I don't believe you've ever specified exactly what about the past you think was better, so we're left guessing.

You should also know that "tax and spend liberals" have a long past, despite Clinton declaring that "the era of big government is over" (Obama ignored that part). There's no point in raising taxes without cutting spending dramatically.

The problem with that is that conservatives never say exactly what they want cut or when they do say it's something that's 0.00000000000001% of the budget. NASA and Big Bird or even Obama's stimulus plan aren't bankrupting the gov't, Social Security and Medicare are.

ETA: But conservatives do like to use the national debt as an excuse to cut programs that they don't like.

>79 barney67:: "You should also know that "tax and spend liberals" have a long past, despite Clinton declaring that "the era of big government is over" (Obama ignored that part). There's no point in raising taxes without cutting spending dramatically."

When Clinton took office, he inherited from George H.W. Bush a deficit of almost $300 billion. When Clinton left office, the federal budget had a surplus of over $200 billion. In just his first term alone, George W. Bush evaporated that surplus (through a combination of tax cuts and spending increases -- yes, that's right, spending increases) into a deficit of over $400 billion. (There's a nice graph of this here: http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/ )

But I don't suppose facts like that should get in the way of your illusory image of Republicans as fiscally conservative and Democrats as fiscally reckless.

By the way...what spending would YOU cut?

70> shrug I have never called you racist. I have pointed out that calling President OBama, or indeed any mature black man "that Boy" is by most peoples standards racists talk. and given an example of a republican politician who has done so.I did this because you asked for an example of racist talk in your party. Yet you ask me again to show you an example of racism. tell me why you do not acknowledge Geoff Davis as an example? Tell you why blacks think the GOP is racist? Are you really asking me why a black man thinks being referred to as the boy is racist?

I have asked in another thread about the lack of diversity in the Republican Party, Why. if not for reasons of institutionalised racism and sexism, are there no black people amongst the House GOP Committee Chairs. You did not respond. Now you ask me why a black man thinks the GOP is racist. Well that lack of diversity is one of the reasons. Not only for black people but for white people. It is not like we form our opinions in different ways because of the colour of our skin.

You ask my why republicans are perceived as racist while republicans refuse to decry Rush Limbaugh for the racist he is. Fail to address the lack of diversity in their own party?

That lack of response Is why people think the GOP harbours racists.

I have not called you a racist. Every party harbours racists, but there is no reason you as a party member should make that harbour a safe one. speak up when you see it. speak up inside your party call for racist candidate to withdraw. advocate for non racist candidates. Or if you are not active in your party. at least stop living in denial. for denial is all to easily mistaken for complicity.

I said it up above, but it bears repeating. As long as Republicans don't have a problem calling Obama "Boy" they can write off most of the minority vote. If they don't want to be competitive, chosing instead to insanely cling to racist terminology, and insist that is still ok, they deserve every loss they get.

I think a strong case could be made that the push for Voter ID laws and the way they were implemented had racist and classist overtones.

83 -- Clinton benefitted from one of those once if a lifetime experiences, the internet gold rush, while at the same time having to compromise with Newt Gingrich's Congress. Obama has no interest in compromising. He thinks he is a king. A savior. Our big Daddy. Saviors don't compromise.

Priority number one for government is to protect the people. Bush was hampered by the country being at war. Government spending goes up when the country is at war, and this is the most dangerous, difficult enemy we have ever faced. We will be at war for at least the next 50-100 years. That is because war was brought to us.

85 -- "As long as Republicans don't have a problem calling Obama "Boy" they can write off most of the minority vote."

As long as liberals make emotional claims like this, they will continue to not be taken seriously.

So one questionable remark by one Republican makes the entire party racist? And how many questionable remarks have been made by Democrats over the years? Does that make them racist?

I don't accept the Willie Horton ad as racist -- compare it to Democrat ads sometimes, then you'll see some real nastiness and cheap shots. Nor do I think voter ID laws are racist. They make it difficult for illegal aliens to vote, something all of us are supposed to be in favor of.

You tell me you see too many white faces in the Republican Party, so they are racist? Whose fault is it that more blacks don't run or vote for the GOP? Maybe they have been brainwashed by the press and by their communities, groupthink again, into believing lies about the party. You take a few comments from a few people out of millions and you blow that up into a conclusion and call it rational and accurate. The problem is you have never questioned your most sacredly held beliefs -- and one of those beliefs, which you seem never to have questioned until I made you -- is that the Republican Party is racist.

Blacks dominate the NBA. Is the NBA racist?

I thought we weren't supposed to judge people by the color of their skin (see MLK). When you look at the GOP and say, Where are the white people?, that's what you are doing. Perhaps you are the racist. You are judging the party by skin color.

How many black Republicans would you have to see in order to accept that the party is not racist? 10? 50? 100? It's arbitrary. You have no end point in mind. This is liberalism: imaginary, futuristic, infinite "progress..."

Maybe more black Republicans would run if the ones who did run and hold office weren't called Uncle Toms and tokens.

Republicans get no credit for the blacks they have appointed to higher office: Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, Clarence Thomas. Nor for the blacks who hold office or who have held office or who have run for office in the past. Many have run, you know, and lost. But then the liberals say, "Well that's not many, that's not enough," to which I say, "You have to start somewhere. Why don't you stop demonizing our candidates by calling them Uncle Toms and house negroes? Why is Rev. Jeremiah Wright your idea of a good role model for a politician?"

The Myth of the Racist Republican:
http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.928/article_detail.asp

Democrat Racism Against Republicans (quotes):
http://cache.trustedpartner.com/docs/library/NationalBlackRepublicanAssociation2...

"Whose fault is it that more blacks don't run or vote for the GOP? Maybe they have been brainwashed by the press and by their communities, groupthink again, into believe lies about the party."

Again, we see a tendency to presume that people can't think for themselves, draw their own conclusions, unless those conclusions are to become or remain Republican. The idea that an educated black man, looking at the policies and platforms of the two parties, could voluntarily choose to vote Democratic is anathaema. No, he must have been 'brainwashed', suffering from 'groupthink', and believes 'lies' about the Republicans.

The irony is obvious. By deriding the intellectual capacity of those who vote against you, you ensure that they continue to do so.

>88 barney67:: I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt until you essentially dismissed the intellectual capabilities of blacks, whom you conclude are "brainwashed" into "groupthink". I'm calling you out on this one: if you think that blacks are so stupid that they can't make informed and intelligent decisions by themselves, then you are racist.

(I write this as someone who grew up conservative and Republican, remained a registered Republican until about 2 years ago, voted for John McCain in 2008, did not vote for Barack Obama this year {though neither did I vote for Romney}, and who still considers himself conservative in many respects.)

88 -- You are saying "one educated black man." You haven't accounted for why blacks overwhelmingly vote Democrat. Or why the dominant view is that Republicans are racist -- and not even worthy of consideration.

92 -- Ok, don't call it brainwashing. Call it osmosis. Call it adaptation to one's environment. If you moved to Kentucky would you become a NASCAR fan? You might.

Whites are every bit as capable of groupthink as blacks. If you think I meant that as a racist comment, you are too quick to label someone a racist. Now why is that? Because since the 1970s, we have been taught, by left-wing professors and others, that the unholy trinity of race/class/gender is the lens through which we read books, judge, and view reality. The OJ trial taught us that racism is even worse than murder.

Often we see the world with what Kant called "a jaundiced eye." We need to get back to being clear-eyed and believe in objective truth.

Obama has no interest in compromising.

When your faced with an opponent that won't compromise (and that's exactly what the no tax pledge is) then there isn't any point in trying to compromise, you'll just get railroaded, like Obama did last summer when he tried to make a deal over the debt limit.

That is because war was brought to us.

Uh, the Iraq war had nothing to do with 9-11 if that's what you're referring to.

88 -- "The idea that an educated black man, looking at the policies and platforms of the two parties, could voluntarily choose to vote Democratic is anathaema."

How common do you think that is? You think every voter analyzes things the way you do? I don't know why people vote the way they do, but I do know it doesn't come from serious, intellectual deliberation over the issues. Even as I write that, it is hard to keep from laughing.

Maybe people vote the way they do because they have been told how to vote, by their parents, relatives, friends, by the teachers, by the internet, by TV and newspapers, by the press, by John Stewart or Stephen Colbert or Saturday Night Live -- like I said in the other thread, the left-wing dominance of culture. Maybe they vote because of what they saw in a commercial, because the candidate has a nice smile, because he seems like a man of the people, because he talks well and smiles a lot, because he tells people what they want to hear.

Have you ever seen people interviewed on TV about why they vote? You think it is because they are capable of serious, objective, critical thought about complex issues? I suppose they are capable of it. If so, they sure aren't demonstrating it. And I don't mean that because they vote Democrat. It's probably just as bad for the other 50 million.

Look at this site. A book site. You would think people would be more informed, better read, more thoughtful. But they're not. Pro and Con isn't exactly a haven of rational brilliance. I'm worried that JGL and Lunar are going to have heart attacks at their keyboards.

89 -- If you didn't vote for one of the two major parties this year, or any year, you are part of the problem, not the solution. All the 21st century elections have been close. Every vote matters.

93 -- "Uh, the Iraq war had nothing to do with 9-11 if that's what you're referring to."

Uh...you need to study this issue more. 9/11 was an act of war against America by militant Islam. We vowed to drain the swamps and fight back. Actually, the war didn't start on 9/11. Radical Muslims have been at war with us for decades (maybe centuries…)

Al Qaeda ("the base" of the terrorist network) is killing people in Iraq right now. Radical mosques, often funded by Saudi oil, are springing up like weeds all over the world, as they have been for decades. Perhaps you would like Saddam Hussein in power so he can kill more people and terrorize the world.

I'm not going to debate this one again. I hope. You must come to terms with 9/11. Americans continue to resist that.

So here, read these:

American Jihad by Steve Emerson
The Crisis of Islam by Bernard Lewis

Both short and easy to read.

#91

Actually, I said 'an' educated black man, as a general reference to blacks who have college degrees. Although one can be intelligent and yet not have attended college. And your statement implies that blacks in general are incapable of thinking, easily led and manipulated, UNLESS, of course, they choose to vote Republican. And then you're seemingly clueless as to why blacks might resent this implication, and vote for the other party.

Let's say I made the statement that the only reason people in general who make less than 6 figures a year vote Republican is that they are easily brainwashed, manipulated, generally racist, and can be persuaded to vote against their own interests. You'd be pretty offended, I'll bet. And I suspect that any Republicans who made less than 6 figures who were told this by a Democrat would be offended as well. Possibly enough that they'd continue to vote Republican, just to spite me and any other democrats who considered them in that light.

Now do you get it?

96 -- But you have not accounted for the high percentage of black votes for Democrats. What is it? 95%? More? That's a fact, unlike your hypothetical six-figure voters.

I don't know why you are so offended when I suggested that blacks are just as guilty as whites of making uninformed, unreflective decisions. It's a generalization to prove a point. Don't you see these people interviewed on TV? Do you ever talk to anyone outside your circle?

So, blacks are brainwashed by the Democrats, and whites are brainwashed by the Republicans, and you're complaining because the Democrats are better at this? (Because the Democrats are also better at brainwashing whites, too.)

Okay, don't call it brainwashed or incapacity. The point remains.

You say that when the Republican party is called racist, "That's only based on appearance, and that's how people judge because it's human nature, and you should live with it." Well, I don't accept that. There must be reasons why blacks don't vote Republican, however irrational those reasons are. I am suggesting that one of those reasons is that they have been very influenced by a dominant left-wing culture (I know I'm spilling over into the other thread, sorry…) that directly or indirectly tells them how to vote. Come on, 95%?

88

I am really hoping you represent the majority view of the Republican party, and that message gets spread wide and far. You think you can get that pubished for a wider audience? Instead of reaching out to minorities, you are defending what is percieved as racism within the party.

I am not saying all Republicans are racists, and I am not saying that you are. But to many people it will sure look like it. And I agree that many, if not most voters are ill informed, so the perception of racism is really all it takes. (Just like the perception that Democrats were soft on crime, weak on defense, and tax and spend liberals has been very damaging to them.)

This leads to a very unfortunate conclusion, deniro; one that I really don't think you wanted to go towards.

Either the Republicans are inferior in influencing, manipulating, (whatever term you'd prefer) voters compared to Democrats. Which means they deserved to lose.

Or the Republican product (cf. The Selling of the President) is inadequately marketed compared to Democrats...which means the Republicans deserved to lose.

The other possibility is that the Republicans lack any way to counter the 'dominant left-wing culture' (which I don't believe exists)...which means they deserve to lose, because they lack any imagination or ideas as to how to counter this vague left-wing culture.

So, you've convincingly argued that the Republican Party is led by incompetent elites, who are now complaining that they should be given a chance even though they are too incompetent to win on their own. Sort of an 'affirmative action' for political parties?

101 -- You want a world where politicians are angels. Politics is your religion. When you vote, you believe you are voting for "the good" over "the evil." To you, Democrats are the good party. To me, the Republicans are the capable party, the problem solvers, the one nearest to the original Constitution and how the Founders intended the country to be run.

102 -- …spilling over into the other thread. Let's take it there. I apologize for hijacking this thread. ADD.

#103

"And that, is why you fail." Yoda

The Founders intended that future generations have the ability to make changes, and the intellectual capacity to recognize what changes would need to be made to preserve the basic intent of the Constitution. The original document has been modified since the original ten amendments, (mostly) in response to changes in our technology and society.

No, the current government isn't anything close to what the Founders wrote. This isn't all good; but neither is it all bad. It's better to look at changes to fundamental principles (like the right to a fair trial, the right to be left alone, protections against searches and seizures, all the 'unenumerated rights' that have been eroded) then to obsess about 'what did the Founders intend?' What the Founders wanted a country where property was safe, the average citizen was free to go about his business without much worry, and the government could not restrict religion, speech, writing, or assembling to protest grievances. (Along with a few other things...)

We CAN'T go back to the 18th (or even the 19th) century; and frankly, we don't want to; those times and places were pretty awful. The Good Old Days; They Were Terrible! Even the 1950s were only good for a select number of Americans.

If the Republicans want to win elections, they are going to have to offer something to a majority of Americans that those Americans want to have. There's no short-cuts, no sinister left-wing conspiracy; that's all it would take.

103

Where in the world do you get that? I dare say I am much more involved in the rough and tumble of politics than you. I worked as a legislative aide for three years, and my girl friend has run two state-wide campaigns. I know there is not a lot of good and evil in politics--mostly greater and lesser stupidity. I am a democrat, partly because I tend to like their policies more than Republican policies, and partly because I think you should dance with the one who brung you.

You made a lot of assertions in your post that are totally unfounded. Besides, I am talking about practicalities--how things are perceived by voters.

But in the end, I want my team to beat your team.

89>

"As long as liberals make emotional claims like this, they will continue to not be taken seriously."

Liberals elect the president increase their numbers in both houses and apparently dominate education and the media and you don't think their opinions should be taken seriously.shrug your choice.

"So one questionable remark by one Republican makes the entire party racist? And how many questionable remarks have been made by Democrats over the years? Does that make them racist?"

No the lack of condemnation from other members of a party is what makes a party appear racist.

If after his acceptance as a candidate the next Republican presidential candidate were to loudly condemn all racist remarks from republican supporters he could transform both his party and his nations opinion of his party. It might well be a winning strategy.

"You tell me you see too many white faces in the Republican Party, so they are racist? Whose fault is it that more blacks don't run or vote for the GOP? Maybe they have been brainwashed by the press. and by their communities, groupthink again, into believing lies about the party. You take a few comments from a few people out of millions and you blow that up into a conclusion and call it rational and accurate. The problem is you have never questioned your most sacredly held beliefs -- and one of those beliefs, which you seem never to have questioned until I made you -- is that the Republican Party is racist."

It matters not if the perception is rational or accurate, no not one jot. what matters is until the party makes a stand against the racists within it . It will be perceived as racist.

"Blacks dominate the NBA. Is the NBA racist?"

I have not the foggiest idea all I know about basketball is that you can't run while holding the ball. and I might be wrong about that.

"I thought we weren't supposed to judge people by the color of their skin (see MLK). When you look at the GOP and say, Where are the white people?, that's what you are doing. Perhaps you are the racist. You are judging the party by skin color."

Oh I have no doubt I am racist, just as I have no doubt that I stink. It is why I shower regularily, If the republican party wants to wash of the stink of racism it need to shower regularly and if it wants people to notice that it does not stink it needs to shower publicly.

"How many black Republicans would you have to see in order to accept that the party is not racist? 10? 50? 100? It's arbitrary. You have no end point in mind. This is liberalism: imaginary, futuristic, infinite "progress...""

Me personally? you are right I personally do not have a fixed number, but the more I see the more probable it would seem that the republicans are not racist. as for the voters in general then the more minorities they see in the party and the higher the positions the hold the more likely they as individuals are to assume the party is not racist.

"Maybe more black Republicans would run if the ones who did run and hold office weren't called Uncle Toms and tokens."

Sigh what a sad thing to say about black people who support the party of Lincoln how could you have thrown away such a heritage. But it is true such abuse is reprehensible I wish I knew how to address it.

"Republicans get no credit for the blacks they have appointed to higher office: Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, Clarence Thomas. Nor for the blacks who hold office or who have held office or who have run for office in the past. Many have run, you know, and lost. But then the liberals say, "Well that's not many, that's not enough," to which I say, "You have to start somewhere. Why don't you stop demonizing our candidates by calling them Uncle Toms and house negroes? Why is Rev. Jeremiah Wright your idea of a good role model for a politician?""

Ah yes, good example,Colin Powell The only republican I have see being attacked by his party for being a racist and still you wonder why Black people do not join you?

The Myth of the Racist Republican:
http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.928/article_detail.asp

R

102> More and more I get the feeling that Republicans are refusing to engage with the wider media.that they simply do not push to get their message across.

>92 barney67:: "Why is that everyone I know who has gone to Notre Dame winds up hating Catholicism?"

Have you ever actually met any Notre Dame alums? (By the way, I went to Notre Dame for graduate school; I did my undergraduate work at Boston College and a Fulbright Fellowship at the WWU-Münster in Germany.)

That you could assume that I "hate Catholicism" indicates just how little you pay attention to my presence on LT -- I'm pretty sure everybody else around here can vouch for that. Or, you might try reading, for example, my length description of my own views in this thread.

What you'll discover is that I am "conservative" in some issues (e.g. pro-life, pro-traditional-family, pro-traditional-sexual-ethics, etc.) and "liberal" in others (e.g. pro-social-justice, pro-serving-the-poor, anti-capital-punishment {because I'm pro-life}, etc.). That is to say, I don't swallow the kool-aid of either political party. Rather, I allow my faith and my reason to guide me in making informed and conscientious decisions about my views.

But I suppose that such intellectual complexity and moral nuance is foreign to your worldview. "You're either with us or against us" is probably as much your mantra as it was President Bush's, eh?

An article on why the Republicans lost the last election; and why they'll probably keep losing.

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175628/tomgram%3A_jeremiah_goulka%2C_rearranging...

109 -- No, I can appreciate complexity, but I think what President Bush said about terrorism--that you either want to fight them or you don't-- was correct. Many countries don't want to fight terrorists because it is a dangerous thing. They appease them. A double game has been going on for a very long time, esp. in Saudi Arabia.

I never said you hated Catholicism, although I suppose my generalization included it. It was hyperbole that I probably shouldn't have used. I know quite a bit about Notre Dame and how it sold its soul for football. I have met many Notre Dame grads and they all hate Catholicism, esp. the ones who had previously attended Catholic school (not me). I wondered why. My point wasn't to defend or attack Catholicism. My point was the influence an environment can have. Like I said, one adapts to the dominant views, by a kind of osmosis absorbs the dominant culture, inhales the cultural air. Notre Dame was a just an example. It's a phenomenon that I have been trying to describe in the other thread.

For example, when you mention social justice and helping the poor, that comes right out of liberal Catholicism, the headquarters of which is probably Notre Dame. I believe they have a Peace Studies department, along with gender studies probably the most worthless of all departments, and I wonder how much of those "peace studies" beliefs you absorbed. Your views to me look contradictory, and I wonder how you can square them enough even to vote.

Long ago, I almost included you among my "interesting libraries" but your interests are too esoteric for me.

I have not drunk any kool-aid. Your attempt to peg me as a cheerleader is ill-advised. There are plenty of positions that the GOP or its supporters hold that I don't accept. In fact, I have been making mental notes for years about what the GOP is doing wrong. I have considered finally writing it down and sending it to National Review, but I'm not sure it would be worth it. Activist I am not. It would be for my own entertainment.

105 -- So you believe with liberals in a "living Constitution"? The term comes from Woodrow Wilson and its essence and use continued through FDR and LBJ up to the present day. It is perhaps the foundation of liberal politics in the 20th and 21st centuries.

It is as though they erased the original Consitution and started from scratch.

New Freedom (Wilson)
New Deal (FDR)
Great Society (LBJ)
"fundamentally transform America" (Obama).

Toward…what? When will the great project be completed and how will we know?

>111 barney67:: "For example, when you mention social justice and helping the poor, that comes right out of liberal Catholicism, the headquarters of which is probably Notre Dame."

1. If you think Notre Dame is the "headquarters" for "liberal" Catholicism, then you don't know anything about Catholic higher education in the United States. Notre Dame falls on the conservative side of Catholic higher education -- but what that means is "conservative" in the sense of traditional. You are confusing the American political labels "conservative" and "liberal" with their counterparts in describing a branch of Christianity -- and although there is some overlap, it isn't absolute. For example, most "conservative" Catholics oppose capital punishment, and you'll recall that Pope John Paul II condemned the invasion of Iraq, and that his successor, Pope Benedict, has repeatedly called for economic and financial reform that even President Obama would consider too far to the left.

2. It doesn't seem to occur to you that anybody besides yourself can use their own intelligence to embrace informed and enlightened views, does it? I embrace helping the poor because Jesus told me to in the Gospel, not because I was brainwashed by "liberal" Catholics. You do yourself an incredible disservice when you dismiss any views you disagree with as held irrationally and delusionally.

"I believe they have a Peace Studies department ... probably the most worthless of all departments, and I wonder how much of those "peace studies" beliefs you absorbed."

God forbid we should study how to make peace in the world, rather than war! "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men of goodwill!" "And his name shall be called, Wonderful! Counsellor! The Mighty God! The Everlasting Father! The Prince of Peace!" "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the sons of God."

"Your views to me look contradictory, and I wonder how you can square them enough even to vote."

It is difficult to find candidates whom I can completely support. The problem you are having is that my views conform, not to the political gospel of the Americas, but to the gospel of Jesus Christ. As that gospel tells us, they are views that will seem contradictory and implausible and even risible to the world -- "for my kingdom is not of this world." They are views that value humility, not pride; service of others, not service of self; self-sacrifice, not self-preservation; worldly poverty and spiritual wealth, rather than worldly wealth and spiritual aridity.

"I know quite a bit about Notre Dame and how it sold its soul for football."

Something we can finally agree on! I will copy here a comment I recently left on an interview with ND's president, Fr. Jenkins, about its football program:

Somehow, "integrity" is not the first word that comes to my mind after being a graduate student at Notre Dame. When a Notre Dame football player can sexually harass a female student at the neighboring St. Mary's College and face no repercussions when her reports of the assault go unheard, to the point that she ends up dead of a drug overdose (see the Elizabeth Seeberg case): is that integrity? When a Notre Dame football player can be arrested for underaged drunk driving not once but twice, and yet be allowed to return to the field the next year (see Michael Floyd): is that integrity? When football practice is so important that a student is recklessly sent up in a scissors lift to videotape it in high winds, resulting in that student's death (see Declan Sullivan): is that integrity?

No: at Notre Dame, integrity is the first virtue sacrificed upon the altar in its second basilica, the football stadium.

107 -- Yes, why did Colin Powell vote for Obama? Can you say with certainty that it had nothing to do with skin color?

What about Oprah? There was a big deal when Obama and Mrs. Clinton were running in the primary and everyone wanted to know, as usual, what does Oprah think? Two liberals, a black man versus a white woman. What will Oprah tell us to do? Oprah replied, "I'm a woman. But I'm a black woman first." She voted for Obama.

Interesting.

113 -- I understand. But here's one point: There's no such thing as a Christian foreign policy. Never has been, never will. The countries of the world are not exactly on the same page morally, if you know what I mean. If everyone were Christian, you might have some luck with Peace Studies. But "Turn the other cheek" will not work with terrorists. Not if the government is to fulfill its primary role, which has nothing to do with following the gospels and everything to do with protecting America and its people wherever they may be.

#112

Wilson was a racist; proof that not all racists are Republican. He was also an elitist.

Let's see; there were seven (7) additional amendments to the Constitution before Wilson was elected. There had been several thousand Supreme Court decisions, including Marbury v. Madison (which expanded the SCOTUS's power immensely beyond what was written in the Constitution), and held (on several occasions) that corporations were 'people' in the legal sense under the Constitution. Does all of this sounf like a static, unchanging document, interpretation of which has remained the same from the beginning?

And the Constitution, much like the nation, was never INTENDED to be completed, finished, beyond the need for change. Something the Founders understood.

#114

So, whites voted for Romney because he was white? Are you sure you want to go there? And (this may come as a shock) Oprah and Powell represent themselves and their opinions. Did skin colour have something to do with Powell's vote? Who knows, besides Powell himself? And if this is true, perhaps the Republicans should nominate a black candidate?

'Terrorism' is a concept. One that has been supported by the United States when used against our enemies. So, it is more correct to say the U.S. wants to stop terrorism used against it, and support terrorism used on its behalf. A project doomed from the beginning.

111> No, I can appreciate complexity, but I think what President Bush said about terrorism--that you either want to fight them or you don't-- was correct. Many countries don't want to fight terrorists because it is a dangerous thing. They appease them. A double game has been going on for a very long time, esp. in Saudi Arabia.

And some people may disagree that they best way to fight terrorism is using the war paradigm.

116 -- So you believe in a "living Constitution." As for the Founders never believing in a "completed project," that's something you need to tell the liberals. It isn't conservatives who believe in a constant rearrangement of society until it achieves perfection (the end of racism, the end of crime, income equality, gender equality, zero unemployment, world peace, etc.).

I meant "terrorists," a specific group(s), not "terrorism," which we will likely always have with us. Terrorism isn't a concept; it's a method, a very old and effective one. I disagree that America supports terrorism. I think that's a cynical view. In fact, I think you have many cynical views. I am probably a born skeptic myself. But if you don't like calling it a war on terrorism, which it probably shouldn't have been called, call it a war on jihadism or (Daniel Pipes's term) militant Islam.

117 -- Those people are woefully uninformed.

#118

Which terrorists? Theirs? Ours? As for America not supporting terrorism; America was FOUNDED on terrorism. (Boston Tea Party? Masked vigilantes destroying private property? Tar and Featherings of tax collectors? Militia groups fighting the British? Remember?) Charlie Wilson's War is a good book on our support of terrorists in Afghanistan. (As an example.) And again, call it a concept, method, or negotiating tactic; it's not something you can reasonably wage war against and win. Ditto for 'jihadism' or 'militant Islam'. cf The Utility of Force for an explanation as to why relying solely on military might to battle such groups fails, unless you're prepared to simply remove/eliminate everyone and replace them with your own people.

The perpetual war state has done far more damage to our civil liberties and human rights than any 'liberal agenda' could ever do; a war state that Republicans (and Democrats) are prepared to maintain.

If you feel comfortable with dismissing the opinions of respected military veterans and commanders, that's fine. However, perhaps jjwilson thinks more highly of them.

It's not a question of 'belief' in a 'living Constitution'. The Constitution is a body of law. The law changes and evolves in response to changes in society. This is why we don't live under the Code of Hammurabi, and why 'common law' has thousands of precedents re-defining it. If you don't want the law to change, you're going to have to create a static society.

119 -- "The law changes" "society changes" -- No. People change it, based on how they view the world. The Supreme Court decides whether a law is constitutional. You seem to believe in inexorable progress. Presentism. Neoterism. That what comes later is always better than what comes before. And that laws must be adjusted accordingly. That's not how our law is supposed to be written or judged. It's supposed to be judged by its constitutionality.

On how warfare needs to be fought today and in the future:

The Pentagon's New Map: War and Peace in the Twenty-first Century by Thomas P.M. Barnett. And others by Barnett. He has a Powerpoint presentation.
New Glory by Lt. Col Ralph Peters
The Case for Democracy by Natan Sharansky

115--at one time West Point had a professor who taught Peace Studies. I guess that makes them obsolete in terms of foreign policy?

109> Ah you traditional Catholics do like to think you are intellectuals. which makes a pleasant change from some of America's home grown churches.

111> Terrorists are not fighting a war they are fighting a propaganda campaign. What they want is to provoke extremism. Countries that do not want extremeism, de-escalate situations . Countries that choose instead to escalate are doing exactly what the terrorists want. This is not about appeasement. This is about denying terrorists plausibility, refusing to play the role that Terrorists have cast you in.

Shrug but then I suspect you think that with respect to racism Republicans are refusing to play the role that democrats have cast them in.Sigh democrats are painting republicans as people who won't address the racism in their own party. how are you not playing that role?

114> hmm you never seem to answer my questions, why?

I do my best to answer yours even those that are I suspect rhetorical.

To begin. no I cannot say that Charlie Crist or Colin Powell did not vote the way they did because of skin colour. It seems unlikely though neither were particular vocal on the need for more black people at higher level of government. And this would have seemed like an ideal opportunity for them to address this issue if it were important to them.
So i think I will take Colin Powell at his word. He seem's like an honourable man. as well as far to intelligent to have missed an opportunity to have spoken up on race. . If that was the issue that decided him. A shame a republican speaking up on race would have in the long term done wonders for the parties credibility.

His stated reason boiled down as I can remember to, and I paraphrase . "Mr Romney's Foreign policy seems too much like The Bush years redux and I have had enough of that shit." and seeing how much shit he caught in those years I cannot say it sounds implausible.

Oprah? I would have though that was quote was self explanatory as a black woman she finds black issues more important to her than women's issues.
You know I bet that a lot of hispanic people find immigration issues more important than women's issue. Now once those issues are addressed. it may be that those groups start to vote on other issues and may support republicans more. Voters are an ungrateful lot. but until those issues are addressed. Democrats will benefit from having postioned themselves as the party who embraces thoses issues.

Back in the 80s a conservative friend of mine asked if the Democratic party was going to kowtow to Jesse Jackson for the next decade, or whether this was just a short term thing. He was hoping that the Dems would continue to embrace Jackson, and that perpetuate their losing streak. (He did not anticipate Clinton, who could embrace the African American community without neccessarily alienating swing voters.)

Turnabout is fair play? How long will the R's refuse to acknowlege that reality has shifted on them? The longer it takes, the better off the D's will be.

Let's see, racist sounding things done by Republicans. Oh, I'll confine myself to just the 2012 campaign. Here's some:

1. Michelle Bachman accusing Huma Abedin of being a terrorist infiltrating the State Department, because, apparently, one cannot be both an American and a Muslim.

2. Rick Santorum saying "I don't want to make black people's lives better by giving them other people's money".

3. Ron Paul attacked Jon Huntsman for having "non-American" adopted children.

4. Mitt Romney giving any credence at all to the ludicrous "birther" claims by saying "No one's ever asked to see my birth certificate".

5. In response to a constituent telling Representative Clemmons of S. Carolina that promoting obtaining voter ID would result in a "swarm of bees going after a watermelon", Clemmons endorsed the racist allusion with an "Amen".

6. Two attendees at the Republican Convention threw peanuts at a black camerawoman and told her "this is how we treat animals".

7. A popular t-shirt slogan seen at many Republican campaign events said "Put the White back in the White House".

8. Sarah Palin's "shuck and jive" comment about Obama.

124 -- What questions?

Re: Powell. Your assessment of Powell is speculation. "So i think I will take Colin Powell at his word"

Re: Your assessment of Oprah's motives is also speculation. But you do admit: "as a black woman she finds black issues more important." That sounds like racism to me, though I'm not sure what "black issues" and "women's issues" are. I thought we were supposed to vote as Americans for American issues.

Face it. You don't know what motivated them.

sigh sigh sigh sigh sigh

125 -- "He did not anticipate Clinton, who could embrace the African American community"

How did he do that?

#96: Uh...you need to study this issue more. 9/11 was an act of war against America by militant Islam. We vowed to drain the swamps and fight back. Actually, the war didn't start on 9/11. Radical Muslims have been at war with us for decades (maybe centuries…)

Al Qaeda ("the base" of the terrorist network) is killing people in Iraq right now. Radical mosques, often funded by Saudi oil, are springing up like weeds all over the world, as they have been for decades. Perhaps you would like Saddam Hussein in power so he can kill more people and terrorize the world.

Except that Saddam Hussein was about as much a radical Muslim as Chavez or Pinochet. Lumping all Arab behavior under militant Islam is simply racist, and fails to understand the complexity of how nationalism and communists had an effect on Arab society.

Radical Muslims have been at war with us for centuries? Really? Morocco is our oldest ally in the world, having had an unbroken treaty of friendship with the US for 220 years. We did fight Muslims in the Barbary wars, but I hardly consider them radical Muslims. We at least nominally fought the Ottoman Empire in WWI, but they were hardly radical Muslims. The earliest I can find the United States to be involved in violent altercations with radical Muslims is the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing, and even then that was not generic radical Muslims; that was Hezbollah. They don't work with al-Qaeda because al-Qaeda considers them heretics for being Shia not Sunni. (Sorry; the Iranian revolution missed me for a second; that's 1979 and another group al-Qaeda doesn't like because they're Shia.)

So actually I don't believe it's reasonable to say that radical Muslims have been at war with us. It is reasonable to say that various groups of people driven by varying degrees and varieties of Islam, as well as differing political agendas and differing political theories have declared war against us. {Edit: Iran isn't Arabic, so in most generality, people, not Arabs.}

#127: So you're motivated solely because you're white, right? I have never seen any white politician or media figure dismiss a white person's opinion as purely based on the person's race. But somehow it's okay to do that to minorities. If we can't summarily dismiss every white person who stated an opinion for Romney, we can't do the same to every black person who stated an opinion for Obama.

In the time of Eisenhower in War and Peace I was given the impression by the author's interview that the Arabs were friendly to the US. The disturbance(s) in that part of the world, since, haven't helped any but… non-Arabs expelling Arabs ?

125> questions? Oh it does not matter I have given up.

You speculated about Colin Powell I merely pointed out that if race was important to him as you speculated then he missed an opportunity to speak about it. I have no idea what labyrinthine logic would someone to lie about their reason for endorsing someone.

People vote as Americans for the issues that important to them as americans.
These issues and their relevant importance vary from person to person so for example crime might be major issue for a family living in a Large city while access to education, or healthcare, or even safe drinking water might be a major issue for someone living in a rural backwater.

That you does not know what particular issues are relevant to black people or women are changes nothing. They know what those issues are and vote accordingly.

"Face it. You don't know what motivated them."

I thought my post was quite clear.

I refused to speculate about their motivation. I pointed out that they had themselves said what motivated them. and rephrased what they had said in a way I hoped you would understand.

What I do not understand is why you believe them to be lying about their motivations.

131 -- Oprah's response wasn't very good, and in fact sounded racist to me. Powell's? I never heard the quote you referring to.

Nevertheless, you say you can't understand why people would lie about their motivations. You've been around, haven't you? Don't you know people? People lie about their motives all the time. Some people lie for no reason at all, just because it's a habit. Do you really expect Oprah and Powell to say, "I voted for him because he was black." They'd get hammered. But like I said, Oprah's reason came very close to saying just that. She alienated a lot of her fans.

I am perfectly willing to answer any questions or arguments you have raised that you think I have neglected. Seriously.

When did I say 'progress'? I said change, which you just admitted to. Change is inevitable; progress is not. Please do not presume to know what I believe, particularly when no statement supports that belief.

Of course people change the law! Who do you think was going to change it, aliens? The Constitution was a change from how things were done before; does that make the Constitution incorrect?

And if the Supreme Court reverses one of their own decisions (e.g. Plessy v. Ferguson) does that make the reversal wrong? After all, Plessy was the law of the land for over 50 years; it shouldn't change, should it?

And whether you or I like it or not (and many times I do not) the SCOTUS does judge cases based on their interpretation of what the Constitution says. Often that interpretation differs from mine. And since the law (all law) deals with people, other factors will always, ALWAYS be a part of how the law deals with society.

Just as other factors besides the tactical and strategic will influence warfare.

~132

If you said "I voted against him because he was a socialist, not because he was Black" would that be a lie? How could we tell? After all, you're White, and, as you've pointed out, Black folk who voted for Obama must have done so because he was Black.

Therefore ............

131 -- I can think of one point you raised that I haven't addressed. It was an interesting one that I have heard other places. It marks a relatively new way of thinking. It was this:

One Republican Party member made an offensive, maybe racist remark. The rest of the party should have publicly denounced him. Because they didn't denounce him, that makes them racists too, just as guilty as the man who made the remark. If the Republican Party wants to be seen (i.e. Bruce's point about appearance mattering most rather than truth) as not racist, they must denounce every offensive remark that every one of its members ever makes.

I find this an extraordinary way of looking at the world. It is becoming quite common to expect a "public apology" as though such a thing could be sincere or even make a difference. I heard left-wing blowhard Bill Maher make fun of it. I really don't see the logic in one man having to apologize for another.

Let's say when I was a kid one of my siblings did something wrong (yes, it happened.) Let's say he used profanity around my aunt. Then I say, "You'll have to forgive my brother. He swears far too much. I'm sorry."

Is that how things worked where you grew up? Where did you grow up?

You think that would work? What would my brother do? Your opinion is that I had to apologize for him to my aunt, otherwise my aunt would have found me just as guilty of swearing. But why would she criticize me? I didn't swear. My brother did. If anyone should apologize, it's him, not me.

Second, if you are going to play "guilt by association," i.e. the Republican Party is racist because some of its voters are racist, I suggest you read some of the books that describe not only Obama's supporters (Occupy, etc.) but more importantly Obama's early years and early influences. We all know Rev. Jeremiah Wright is a racist and revolutionary, a man who hates whites and hates America. And yet Obama continued to go to his church and listen to him rant week after week. And no one in the press except Fox, evil Fox, held him accountable for that. Or what about Bill Ayers, the anarchist/terrorist. There's nothing like that in Romney's past. Obama was friends with some very far left radicals. He has not renounced this past. In fact, his past has informed his views today and has informed who he has appointed to office.

So if you want to play guilt by association, liberals are going to lose that game very fast.

133 -- "Change is inevitable"

No, it isn't. People make changes. People create history, at least in part. You may not have used the word "progress" but you are a using a philosophy of history, without even realizing it, that rests on faith in progress -- one that says history is not the result of individual action, but rather history is an impersonal force all its own which causes things to happen. Who is this History? Where does he live? How does he make things happen?

What Supreme Court justices are supposed to do is to judge a law by whether it is constitutional, whether it adheres to the original Constitution, not by whether it fits the fleeting desires of the current population. "Other factors," if I'm getting your point, should play no place in it.

All texts, to some degree, have correct interpretations and incorrect interpretations. All texts, to some degree, have an objective, unchanging meaning. Isn't Moby-Dick about a whale? Yes. It's about more than that. But it is partly about a whale.

It's not a crime: You believe, with liberals, in a "living Constitution."

What Supreme Court justices are supposed to do is to judge a law by whether it is constitutional, whether it adheres to the original Constitution, not by whether it fits the fleeting desires of the current population.

No, they aren't. I can't think of a single legal scholar who holds this position. Even the "originalists" like Scalia think that a justice is supposed to interpret the Constitution in the manner that the framers would have interpreted it, bringing in extra-Constitutional material to support their assertion that one way or another would have been how a provision would have been interpreted at the time.

But this approach poses two problems. First, it ignores two hundred plus years of legal precedents. And second, it merely replaces the "fleeting desires of the current population" with the "fleeting desires of a population from the late 1700s". Which is not exactly an improvement.

Whether I agree with it or not, an interesting article about Malcolm X by conservative scholar Russell Kirk from 1965:

http://www.imaginativeconservative.org/2012/12/russell-kirk-on-malcolm-x.html#mo...

People make changes. So do natural forces. People create history; so do natural forces. The 1755 earthquake in Lisbon made a lot of changes; was this progress for that city, that country? The 'Little Ice Age' shut down Norse colonization of the New World and Greenland, altering our history. The 1815 Tambora volcanic eruption caused food shortages and starvation across the globe. So, change may lead to progress; or mass death and collapse of civilizations. And even if every human being agreed to make no changes; these forces would make them. So, change is inevitable; progress may or may not come with those changes. Change is a natural law; it will continue even if the human race ceases to exist.

History is the study of forces (natural and man-made) that influence and shape human society. With it, you can find patterns (faced with 'X', most people react with 'Y'). Saying history is a force is like saying biology is life.

"What Supreme Court justices are supposed to do is to judge a law by whether it is constitutional, whether it adheres to the original Constitution, not by whether it fits the fleeting desires of the current population. "Other factors," if I'm getting your point, should play no place in it."

Oh yes; our judges should be complete automatons, making rulings solely on the merits of the law and the case. However this is not and will never be the case. For one thing, the law is based on people, to govern people. So, right from the start, there's an emotional, irrational component. Second, people interpret the law. Saying a judge shouldn't be influenced by how they were raised, their life experiences, what they ate that morning is an absurd mantra. Even the Justices who do their best to set aside emotional and personal influences can't completely succeed. Nor would we want them to; a law that doesn't meet the needs of the present population WILL be ignored, to the detriment of the law. (cf. the 18th Amendment; completely legal, and very destructive.)

"All texts, to some degree, have correct interpretations and incorrect interpretations. All texts, to some degree, have an objective, unchanging meaning."

For the first, what is the 'correct' interpretation of a given text has possibly been the cause of more conflict than virtually any other source. Strange how two scholars, with equivalent education, can argue so vehemently over what certain books and passages 'really mean'. It's almost as if people judge texts based on their prior backgrounds, experiences, and preferences. That can't be happening, can it? As for the second, it fails under the problems of the first sentence. What is 'objective, unchanging meaning' to one person is a completely subjective statement to another. Only in statements of mathematical principles is this not true.

And again; it's not a 'belief'; it's a fact. Societies change, people change with them, along with their laws. Again, progress may or may not be a part of that change.

I get that natural disasters cause changes. But that's the natural world. Surely you distinguish between man and nature.

I disagree that society changes on its own. Society changes because people change it.

Thanks for the Kirk link. He was a large soul, and that was an interesting and fitting tribute. He seemed to understand that a) Malcolm X was a product of his time and his nation, and b) he was in flux, and moving in a more productive direction.

That made me want to read more of Kirk. And it made me wish there were people like that still around in the conservative movment today.

#140

And one of the reasons people make changes in society is in response to natural events. Or are saying that people should simply ignore the natural world and continue doing things as always? Can't happen, and won't happen. Galveston, TX was once one of the leading cities in Texas; a competitor against New Orleans for trade on the Gulf. All of that changed. So, society changed in response to a natural event. New Orleans is unlikely to recover its former status. Again, a societal response to a natural event.

Society changes because people change it; people change it in the face of changing circumstances (such as, say, a natural disaster). Change is inevitable.

Let us suppose that another pandemic happens, similar to the Black Death. Are you suggesting that society wouldn't alter as a result of such an event? That people wouldn't re-consider what policies and issues were most important to them after a change of that magnitude? Yes, people would be making the change; but society would change because people's reaction to the epidemic. Just as society has changed in response to human motivations. But you aren't going to stop change, anymore than Canute could stop the tide.

The Arctic is already seeing changes in society due to climate change. Whole villages have had to move, and the warmer waters have changed the way people (and seals) feed on fish. When the north has a year round, ice free shipping lane, expect Barrow to be the new Galveston.

142 -- "And one of the reasons people make changes in society is in response to natural events."

Of course.

#144

Then you agree that society changes; it changes as a result of natural events, and that such changes are, therefore, inveitable.

None of these changes imply progress per se; change is always both good and bad (good for some, bad for others), and often the numbers are skewed in one direction or the other. Progress can come from change; but that's not the only result.

So, since society and the law changes, must change, in the light of changing circumstances due to natural events, is it not reasonable to presume that society changes in response to man-made events? Attacks by another nation, overthrow of a government by a foreign-sponsored coup, civil war, underclass protests; these are all events which have altered societies and laws (again, not always for the better). Popular response to continued events, generally sparked by a disaster that gains prominence (cf. the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire) can also change society and laws. So can dramatic presentations of current conditions (Uncle Tom's Cabin, The Jungle).

It should also be noted that although such events CAN change society and laws, they don't always do so. History also studies why some events make minimal, if any, changes whereas others completely re-make society.

This is why the Consitution was written in a manner which premitted amendments; why common law is rife with layers of interpretation; why even our concepts and laws concerning enforcement and incarceration have changed. Additional information, various events, and advancing technology change how things are done, and how society should work.

135 In spite of your numeration I am going to assume this was aimed at me.

"You think that would work? What would my brother do? Your opinion is that I had to apologize for him to my aunt, otherwise my aunt would have found me just as guilty of swearing."

Why if people thought like that then they would convict an entire bank gang for murder when just one of them kills somebody. Oh wait they do.

I guess people do think birds of a feather flock together and that things said on a public platform as a party candidate do reflect the views of all the party if they are not repudiated. Guilt by association? No more like guilty of choosing to associate.

As the song says. You can tell a man who boozes by the company he chooses. Consider the pig's actions in that song. I recommend them to the republican party.

#136: What Supreme Court justices are supposed to do is to judge a law by whether it is constitutional, whether it adheres to the original Constitution, not by whether it fits the fleeting desires of the current population.

Jay Wexler, in The Odd Clauses: Understanding the Constitution Through Ten of Its Most Curious Provisions mentions that one of the true tests of Constitutional interpretation is that line that says the president cannot appoint an ex-congressman to a position that had its salary raised during their turn in Congress. Is that remedied by reducing the salary to what it was before they joined Congress? Pedantically no, but many presidents have considered that sufficient, and reasonably it is.

In any case, the "original" Constitution is in places a clear technical document and in places vague and fuzzy. It is not on the literal text an incorrect statement that the 9th and 10th Amendments subsumes the 1st, 2nd and 4th Amendments and that several later amendments, the 13th, 15th, 19th and 24th, are mostly redundant with it.

Usually, when I see conservatives complaining about an activist judge, it's a disagreement about which of several "correct" interpretations of the Constitution is in play. You think that "unreasonable searches and seizures" is defined by the 18th century populace? I see nothing in the Constitution to insist on that; I find it an equally correct interpretation that "unreasonable" was meant to be interpreted by the "fleeting desires of the current population".

(There are exceptions; Griswold, Roe, Lawrence, where the judges had no real foundation for their rulings IMO besides the not-explicitly-referred to 9th and 10th Amendments.)