AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@nimh,

nimh wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Would you? I don't recall you ever correcting members for calling George Bush a war criminal, liar, and worse.

Um - you really don't see a significant difference between calling George Bush - that is to say, one person, one politician, whose actions you can genuinely find repulsive - a criminal or liar, and calling Bush supporters, collectively, traitors to their country? You really dont see the difference between attacking a politician for what you consider him to have done, and smearing half the country as traitors, "plain and simple", for supporting a politician you don't agree with?

Sure I see a difference. But I don't know that CJ did that unless he explicitly confirms your interpretation of what he said. Nor do you know that.

Quote:

Foxfyre wrote:
You have never once defended me or anybody else on the right when falsely accused.

Bull.

You're right and I apologize. The line should have been "I have never once SEEN you defend me or anybody else on the right when falsely accused."

Quote:

Foxfyre wrote:
I don't see Obama as a traitor guilty of treason at this time, but I don't know what CJ had in mind when he said that either.

CJ didnt talk about Obama - he called Obama's supporters, collectively, traitors and enemies of the USA.

That's what you presume that he said. I still have not heard him confirm that is the intent of what he said.

Quote:

Foxfyre wrote:
I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt and opportunity to explain themselves before I judge them.

- Except when they're liberals, apparently.

- Except him calling Obama supporters traitors and enemies of their country apparently didn't even warrant asking him to explain himself before you judged him. Apparently, you just accept stuff like that unquestioningly from people you consider to be on your side, and actually respond by heartily inviting them over to your thread.

As you previously so succintly put it: bull. I didn't accept the statement unquestioningly. CJ has been around for a long time and makes a lot of outrageous statements, I think mostly because he knows he can count on getting a rise out of self-important, self righteous types who will immediately judge him for such outrageous statement. If I thought he actually meant it, I would have asked him to specify precisely how he arrived at that conclusion. Since you presume to judge me on this issue however, it is actually you who accepted the statement unquestioningly and judged him accordingly.

Quote:

Foxfyre wrote:
That, by the way, is a traditional American value which most MACs support and most MACs think the thought police to be far more sinister bottom feeders than the occasional excitable patriot.

Wait, what - so when someone like CJ calls all Democrats traitors to their country, he is not guilty of failing "to give people the benefit of the doubt and opportunity to explain themselves", he's just being an "excitable patriot"; but when others respond angrily and denigratingly to being smeared as traitors, they are guilty of "failing "to give people the benefit of the doubt and opportunity to explain themselves"?

CJ was not accusing any specific member of A2K. You could choose to believe he was including you or not. You are accusing/attacking him specifically. There are numbnuts on other threads today making all sorts of accusations about all sorts of people and they are doing so with impunity because they have been called on it before and they continue to do it. It isn't worth my time worrying about it. One of those 'if you repeat a lie often enough it becomes truth' kinds of things I guess.

I would have respected you had you asked CJ for clarification and made him support his statement. You didn't. You judged him and continue to condemn him. But for the record, I usually let it pass when those on YOUR side make outrageous statements about Bush supporters or Republicans or conservatives that are equally as sweeping and dumb at face value. You have yet to correct any of them and I believe at times have been guilty of such characterizations yourself.

Methinks you protest too much, Sir Nimh.

3 Replies

@Foxfyre,

And for the record, here is CJ's exact quote that has everybody so apolectic:

Quote:

Billions down the drain to placate his union cronies... Waggoner gone but Gettlefucker still on the job.... Obama is a disgrace. His supporters are enemies of the United States. It's treason pure and simple.

I would interpret all his remarks to relate to the 'billions down the drain' part, and I don't disagree with CJ that it is a disgrace or that those who agree with it are agreeing to a very bad thing for the USA. I wouldn't have used the word 'treason', but I understand how somebody would see ripping the taxpayer off by billions of dollars for political expediency as a treasonous act.

But I won't speak for CJ, however, as he is perfectly capable of speaking for himself.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

And for the record, here is CJ's exact quote that has everybody so apolectic:

Quote:
Billions down the drain to placate his union cronies... Waggoner gone but Gettlefucker still on the job.... Obama is a disgrace. His supporters are enemies of the United States. It's treason pure and simple.

I would interpret all his remarks to relate to the 'billions down the drain' part, and I don't disagree with CJ that it is a disgrace or that those who agree with it do not have the best interests of the USA in mind. I wouldn't have used the word 'treason', but I understand how somebody would see ripping the taxpayer off by billions of dollars for political expediency as a treasonous act.

You didn't say **** about the Bush admin invading the Federal Budget during their little Iraq experiment, when we were flying pallets of money to another country and then not keeping any track whatsoever of where they went, much of it to Republican contractors in Iraq, with no record. And we know for a fact that much of the work was never done.

Should I call you a traitor for supporting this? This is worse than what Obama has done, no matter what you think about the politics; money was given away with no records. Billions of dollars of your an my money. Would you like to be called a traitor for supporting this?

Quote:

But I won't speak for CJ, however, as he is perfectly capable of speaking for himself.

This, I completely agree with.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Focus Cyclop. I am on the record of what I have said about Iraq on a number of threads. This particular line of discussion does not include Iraq, however, except as it pertains to current federal expenditures. It includes what our government is doing here and now. You are on the record as being a 100% supporter of that. I am on the record as not supporting the bailouts and other insane spending at all.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

You sure can pick things out of the Fed papers that have no relation to what you are arguing ican..

Quote:

The change relating to taxation may be regarded as the most important; and yet the present Congress have as complete authority to REQUIRE of the States indefinite supplies of money for the common defense and general welfare, as the future Congress will have to require them of individual citizens

So.. Hamiliton argues that the Fed government can get indefinite supplies of money for the general welfare.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed45.asp

Quote:

Though a law, therefore, laying a tax for the use of the United States would be supreme in its nature, and could not legally be opposed or controlled

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed33.asp
Hamilton also argues that any tax passed by the US would be supreme in its nature.

However, this is the argument by Hamilton that undermines yours ican..

Quote:

What is a power, but the ability or faculty of doing a thing? What is the ability to do a thing, but the power of employing the MEANS necessary to its execution? What is a LEGISLATIVE power, but a power of making LAWS? What are the MEANS to execute a LEGISLATIVE power but LAWS? What is the power of laying and collecting taxes, but a LEGISLATIVE POWER, or a power of MAKING LAWS, to lay and collect taxes? What are the propermeans of executing such a power, but NECESSARY and PROPER laws?

This simple train of inquiry furnishes us at once with a test by which to judge of the true nature of the clause complained of. It conducts us to this palpable truth, that a power to lay and collect taxes must be a power to pass all laws NECESSARY and PROPER for the execution of that power; and what does the unfortunate and culumniated provision in question do more than declare the same truth, to wit, that the national legislature, to whom the power of laying and collecting taxes had been previously given, might, in the execution of that power, pass all laws NECESSARY and PROPER to carry it into effect? I have applied these observations thus particularly to the power of taxation, because it is the immediate subject under consideration, and because it is the most important of the authorities proposed to be conferred upon the Union. But the same process will lead to the same result, in relation to all other powers declared in the Constitution. And it is EXPRESSLY to execute these powers that the sweeping clause, as it has been affectedly called, authorizes the national legislature to pass all NECESSARY and PROPER laws. If there is any thing exceptionable, it must be sought for in the specific powers upon which this general declaration is predicated. The declaration itself, though it may be chargeable with tautology or redundancy, is at least perfectly harmless.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed33.asp

Since Hamilton argues that Congress has the power to pass all necessary and proper laws simply because they are given that power and since Hamilton also states that they are to provide for the general welfare, it is obvious that Hamilton would agree that Congress can pass all necessary and proper laws for the general welfare.

The power to provide for the general welfare, like the power of taxation, "must be a power to pass all laws NECESSARY and PROPER for the execution of that power".

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Focus Cyclop. I am on the record of what I have said about Iraq on a number of threads. This particular line of discussion does not include Iraq, however, except as it pertains to current federal expenditures. It includes what our government is doing here and now.

I'll discuss whatever I goddamn well please, Fox, thank you very much. And I assert that any Republican who complains about so-called 'wasted' money under Obama is a hypocrite, if they cannot produce a record of much larger complaints about ACTUAL wasted money under Bush.

Quote:

You are on the record as being a 100% supporter of that. I am on the record as not supporting the bailouts and other insane spending at all.

You don't have to remind me what our positions are Fox; just answer the question. Should you be considered a traitor for upholding Bush's unlawful giveaway of billions of dollars in Iraq to US contractors, most of them political supporters of his, with no record of where the money went?

Cycloptichorn

3 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cyclo, Excellent questions for Foxie, and I'm also interested in her answers (if any).

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

You'll have to make your case for the unlawful part, Cyclop. Then we might have something to discuss. (And I'm wondering if Nimh will condemn you for making outrageous statements as he is condemning CJ?)

The vote to authorize military intervention in Iraq:
House:
Republicans: Aye 215 Nay 6
Democrats: Aye 82 Nay 126

Senate:
Republicans: Aye 48 Nay 1
Democrats: Aye 29 Nay 21

It is a pretty fair bet that had a Democrat been President at the time, the numbers would have been similar but reversed in the two parties. But there was nothing illegal about that vote or all the many votes to fund the war since. But you can't get around all the prominent Democrats who were convinced Saddam Hussein had WMD and who were urging President Clinton to do something about it well before 9/11.

The reason I think CJ should have used a different word than 'treason' is that Congress has also authorized the bailout monies and that on the face of it makes it 'legal'. But it was a bad deal with it was done in 2008 and it is a bad deal now. And there is nothing unAmerican about saying so.

1 Reply

Cyclo is not saying (although he may believe, i don't know) that the invasion of Iraq is unlawful, he is saying that the giveaways to cronies of Cheney in unbid contracts is unlawful.

Focus, Fox, focus.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

My interest in the Court at this time is the hope for it to be a body committed to correctly interpreting the letter and intent of the law of the land and not of a mind to use it to further their own ideology and sociopolitical agenda and create their own laws to that end.

Then why the insistence of rejecting Hamilton's interpretation of the General Welfare Clause? Why the hope that Hamilton's interpretation be overruled by "constitutionalists", implying that Hamilton was not a constitutionalist? Nitpicking has nothing to do with it: You want the people to have the power to choose the representatives reflecting their values -- unless these values disagree with yours. As soon as they disagree with yours, you regret that the Supreme Court let the people's representatives decide what the general welfare is, and look for judicial activism to enforce your values against the values the people voted for.

The problem here is not that I'm nitpicking. The problem is your utter lack of consistency in your reasoning.

1 Reply

@parados,

Thanks, Parados.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

I think though Thomas, you are interpreting Hamilton's view and the Court decision much differently than I am interpreting it. You seem to think Hamilton was advocating government charity. He wasn't. Nor do I think that is what the Court was advocating at the time as previously stated.

You seem to be arguing a defense for socialism and a 'nanny' state. I am arguing that the Founders, including Hamilton, saw a real danger in that and the risk of returning to the same kind of authoritarian and oppressive government that they were ridding themselves of.

This is what I mean about arguing the principle, not nitpicking the fine point of the law as interpreted by a Court. I don't see the courts as infallible. Do you?

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

And there is nothing unAmerican about saying so.

So.. it isn't unAmerican to call it treason? Yeah.. accusing the majority of Americans of treason is very American. Rolling Eyes

1 Reply

@parados,

If you can't call it treason or whatever else it is, you can't criticize it at all.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

This is Hamilton's argument Fox...
What part of it do you disagree with?

Quote:

What is a power, but the ability or faculty of doing a thing? What is the ability to do a thing, but the power of employing the MEANS necessary to its execution? What is a LEGISLATIVE power, but a power of making LAWS? What are the MEANS to execute a LEGISLATIVE power but LAWS? What is the power of providing for the general welfare, but a LEGISLATIVE POWER, or a power of MAKING LAWS, to provide for the general welfare? What are the proper means of executing such a power, but NECESSARY and PROPER laws?

Hamilton argues that the legislature is free to make whatever laws they want to concerning a power they have. You may disagree with that power like ican disagrees with Hamilton when it comes to taxation but you can't argue that Hamilton didn't make that argument.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

If you can't call it treason or whatever else it is, you can't criticize it at all.

So the only valid criticism is calling it "treason"? What utter nonsense from you. It is NOT treason. It may be political differences but that doesn't make it treason.

Perhaps you should read the constitution Fox since you want to argue that we have to be strict constructionists. Under the constitution is it NOT treason and should not be called that.

1 Reply

@parados,

I didn't call it treason. I don't presume to know what the rationale of the member is who did call it treason. The Merriam Webster definition of 'treason' is

Quote:

Does diverting billions of taxpayer dollars to appease a union constitute 'betrayal of trust' or 'treachery'? Does attempting to dishonestly alter the substance and basis of a government and/or its Constitution constitute treason? Is that happening? I don't know and neither do any of you. But asking the question or demanding to know what is happening has been the prerogative of a free people for a very long time now. And I, for one, am not willing to give up that freedom without a whimper.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

If you can't call it treason or whatever else it is, you can't criticize it at all.

Riiiiiight. And if you can't call Bush a fascist, then you're not able to criticise his decisions at all.

As harsh as it sounds, but no political discourse is possible if we don't allow ourselves to call our political opponents traitors or "enemies of the United States".

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

Does attempting to dishonestly alter the substance of your statements, Fox, constitute you losing your mind? Is that happening? I don't know and neither do any of you. But asking the question or demanding to know what is happening has been the prerogative of a free people for a very long time now. And I, for one, am not willing to give up that freedom without a whimper.

0 Replies

@old europe,

It really must be the water that some folks here drink that allows them to take something out of context that dramatically and make it into something that they can more easily attack. Also, that way they don't ever have to defend the actual issue attacked.

Interesting.

1 Reply

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know