AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

James Morrison wrote:
1 Reply report Tue 2 Jun, 2009 06:20 pm ICAN you are not alone in your concept of lawlessness regarding our government under present and past politicians. This column, of course, deals with the here and now with an eye towards our future.

Quote:
Jewish World Review May 14, 2009 20 Iyar 5769

Tincture of Lawlessness: Obama's Overreaching Economic Policies

By George Will

Anyone, said T.S. Eliot, could carve a goose, were it not for the bones. And anyone could govern as boldly as his whims decreed, were it not for the skeletal structure that keeps civil society civil " the rule of law. The Obama administration is bold. It also is careless regarding constitutional values and is acquiring a tincture of lawlessness.

In February, California's Democratic-controlled Legislature, faced with a $42 billion budget deficit, trimmed $74 million (1.4 percent) from one of the state's fastest-growing programs, which provides care for low-income and incapacitated elderly people and which cost the state $5.42 billion last year. The Los Angeles Times reports that "loose oversight and bureaucratic inertia have allowed fraud to fester."

But the Service Employees International Union collects nearly $5 million a month from 223,000 caregivers who are members. And the Obama administration has told California that unless the $74 million in cuts are rescinded, it will deny the state $6.8 billion in stimulus money.

Such a federal ukase (the word derives from czarist Russia; how appropriate) to a state legislature is a sign of the administration's dependency agenda " maximizing the number of people and institutions dependent on the federal government. For the first time, neither sales nor property nor income taxes are the largest source of money for state and local governments. The federal government is.

The SEIU says the cuts violate contracts negotiated with counties. California officials say the state required the contracts to contain clauses allowing pay to be reduced if state funding is.

Anyway, the Obama administration, judging by its cavalier disregard of contracts between Chrysler and some of the lenders it sought money from, thinks contracts are written on water. The administration proposes that Chrysler's secured creditors get 28 cents per dollar on the $7 billion owed to them but that the United Auto Workers union get 43 cents per dollar on its $11 billion in claims " and 55 percent of the company. This, even though the secured creditors' contracts supposedly guaranteed them better standing than the union.

Among Chrysler's lenders, some servile banks that are now dependent on the administration for capital infusions tugged their forelocks and agreed. Some hedge funds among Chrysler's lenders that are not dependent were vilified by the president because they dared to resist his demand that they violate their fiduciary duties to their investors, who include individuals and institutional pension funds.

The Economist says the administration has "ridden roughshod over [creditors'] legitimate claims over the [automobile companies'] assets. . . . Bankruptcies involve dividing a shrunken pie. But not all claims are equal: some lenders provide cheaper funds to firms in return for a more secure claim over the assets should things go wrong. They rank above other stakeholders, including shareholders and employees. This principle is now being trashed." Tom Lauria, a lawyer representing hedge fund people trashed by the president as the cause of Chrysler's bankruptcy, asked that his clients' names not be published for fear of violence threatened in e-mails to them.

The Troubled Assets Relief Program, which has not yet been used for its supposed purpose (to purchase such assets from banks), has been the instrument of the administration's adventure in the automobile industry. TARP's $700 billion, like much of the supposed "stimulus" money, is a slush fund the executive branch can use as it pleases. This is as lawless as it would be for Congress to say to the IRS: We need $3.5 trillion to run the government next year, so raise it however you wish " from whomever, at whatever rates you think suitable. Don't bother us with details.

This is not gross, unambiguous lawlessness of the Nixonian sort " burglaries, abuse of the IRS and FBI, etc. " but it is uncomfortably close to an abuse of power that perhaps gave Nixon ideas: When in 1962 the steel industry raised prices, President John F. Kennedy had a tantrum and his administration leaked rumors that the IRS would conduct audits of steel executives, and sent FBI agents on predawn visits to the homes of journalists who covered the steel industry, ostensibly to further a legitimate investigation.

c
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/will051409.php3

********************************************************************
Because the frauds, Joe from Chicago and Setanta refuse to respond to the fine posts made repeatedly by James Morrison, they surrender and integrity they ever had.

1 Reply

Here are some facts for Joe from Chicago and Thomas to chew on. Of course, Thomas may rebut them. Thomas has some courage. But Joe from Chicago.

I continue to urinate on his shoes and he is so cowardly he lets me do it.

Material below is from the fine post written by James Morrison to which no left winger responded. The rule for left wingers--If you can't answer the argument, run away.

1 Reply report Tue 2 Jun, 2009 06:20 pm ICAN you are not alone in your concept of lawlessness regarding our government under present and past politicians. This column, of course, deals with the here and now with an eye towards our future.

Quote:
Jewish World Review May 14, 2009 20 Iyar 5769

Tincture of Lawlessness: Obama's Overreaching Economic Policies

By George Will

Anyone, said T.S. Eliot, could carve a goose, were it not for the bones. And anyone could govern as boldly as his whims decreed, were it not for the skeletal structure that keeps civil society civil " the rule of law. The Obama administration is bold. It also is careless regarding constitutional values and is acquiring a tincture of lawlessness.

In February, California's Democratic-controlled Legislature, faced with a $42 billion budget deficit, trimmed $74 million (1.4 percent) from one of the state's fastest-growing programs, which provides care for low-income and incapacitated elderly people and which cost the state $5.42 billion last year. The Los Angeles Times reports that "loose oversight and bureaucratic inertia have allowed fraud to fester."

But the Service Employees International Union collects nearly $5 million a month from 223,000 caregivers who are members. And the Obama administration has told California that unless the $74 million in cuts are rescinded, it will deny the state $6.8 billion in stimulus money.

Such a federal ukase (the word derives from czarist Russia; how appropriate) to a state legislature is a sign of the administration's dependency agenda " maximizing the number of people and institutions dependent on the federal government. For the first time, neither sales nor property nor income taxes are the largest source of money for state and local governments. The federal government is.

The SEIU says the cuts violate contracts negotiated with counties. California officials say the state required the contracts to contain clauses allowing pay to be reduced if state funding is.

Anyway, the Obama administration, judging by its cavalier disregard of contracts between Chrysler and some of the lenders it sought money from, thinks contracts are written on water. The administration proposes that Chrysler's secured creditors get 28 cents per dollar on the $7 billion owed to them but that the United Auto Workers union get 43 cents per dollar on its $11 billion in claims " and 55 percent of the company. This, even though the secured creditors' contracts supposedly guaranteed them better standing than the union.

Among Chrysler's lenders, some servile banks that are now dependent on the administration for capital infusions tugged their forelocks and agreed. Some hedge funds among Chrysler's lenders that are not dependent were vilified by the president because they dared to resist his demand that they violate their fiduciary duties to their investors, who include individuals and institutional pension funds.

The Economist says the administration has "ridden roughshod over [creditors'] legitimate claims over the [automobile companies'] assets. . . . Bankruptcies involve dividing a shrunken pie. But not all claims are equal: some lenders provide cheaper funds to firms in return for a more secure claim over the assets should things go wrong. They rank above other stakeholders, including shareholders and employees. This principle is now being trashed." Tom Lauria, a lawyer representing hedge fund people trashed by the president as the cause of Chrysler's bankruptcy, asked that his clients' names not be published for fear of violence threatened in e-mails to them.

The Troubled Assets Relief Program, which has not yet been used for its supposed purpose (to purchase such assets from banks), has been the instrument of the administration's adventure in the automobile industry. TARP's $700 billion, like much of the supposed "stimulus" money, is a slush fund the executive branch can use as it pleases. This is as lawless as it would be for Congress to say to the IRS: We need $3.5 trillion to run the government next year, so raise it however you wish " from whomever, at whatever rates you think suitable. Don't bother us with details.

This is not gross, unambiguous lawlessness of the Nixonian sort " burglaries, abuse of the IRS and FBI, etc. " but it is uncomfortably close to an abuse of power that perhaps gave Nixon ideas: When in 1962 the steel industry raised prices, President John F. Kennedy had a tantrum and his administration leaked rumors that the IRS would conduct audits of steel executives, and sent FBI agents on predawn visits to the homes of journalists who covered the steel industry, ostensibly to further a legitimate investigation.

The Obama administration's agenda of maximizing dependency involves political favoritism cloaked in the raiment of "economic planning" and "social justice" that somehow produce results superior to what markets produce when freedom allows merit to manifest itself, and incompetence to fail. The administration's central activity " the political allocation of wealth and opportunity " is not merely susceptible to corruption, it is corruption.

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/will051409.php3

0 Replies

@genoves,

From the Economist's View:

Quote:

Apr 20, 2008
George Will's Elitist Views

George Will tries to talk about Fed policy, but if you don't understand the Fed's goals - and he doesn't - then the analysis of policy will be based on a faulty premise and reach incorrect conclusions. George Will thinks:

The Fed's mission is to preserve the currency as a store of value by preventing inflation. ... The Fed should not try to produce this or that rate of economic growth or unemployment

But that's wrong. As Mishkin says:

In a democratic society like our own, the ultimate purpose of the central bank is to promote the public good by pursuing a course of monetary policy that fosters economic prosperity and social welfare. In the United States, as in virtually every other country, the central bank has a more specific set of objectives that have been established by the government. This mandate was originally specified by the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and was most recently clarified by an amendment to the Federal Reserve Act in 1977.

According to this legislation, the Federal Reserve's mandate is "to promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates." Because long-term interest rates can remain low only in a stable macroeconomic environment, these goals are often referred to as the dual mandate; that is, the Federal Reserve seeks to promote the two coequal objectives of maximum employment and price stability.

How concerned is George Will about the working class and employment? Should we use monetary policy to try to stimulate employment even if there's a chance of inflation? Not in George Will's world:

A surge of inflation might mean the end of the world as we have known it.

He ends his column by putting his analytical skills to work:

If Congress cannot suppress its itch to "do something" while markets are correcting the prices of housing and money, Congress could pass a law saying: No company benefiting from a substantial federal subvention ... may pay any executive more than the highest pay of a federal civil servant ($124,010). That would dampen Wall Street's enthusiasm for measures that socialize losses while keeping profits private.

First he tells us - incorrectly - that the Fed's sole job is to "to preserve the currency as a store of value." But now he tells us that government should not intervene when markets are "correcting the prices of housing and money." So which is it, do we let markets correct the price of money or not?

He doesn't think the Fed should do anything to help the working class stay employed, but that didn't stop him from trying to make the case in his last column that Democrats, Barrack Obama in particular, follow a "doctrine of condescension toward those people":

What had been under FDR a celebration of America and the values of its working people has become a doctrine of condescension toward those people...

That is, of course, a crock, but what is the condescension here? I think making up Fed goals to support a policy that ignores working class' needs is the condescending act. It's telling in any case.

Why is George Will so elitist? Maybe it's his background:

Barack Obama's comments about the white working class have thrown the political campaign into a particularly comic spasm of pretense and hypocrisy, but I was planning to let it go, I really was, until George F. Will decided to leap to the defense of the proletariat. Yes, that George F. Will. The fabulously wealthy, bow tie-wearing, pretentious reference-mongering, Anglophilic fop who grew up in a university town as a professor's son, earned two advanced degrees, has a designated table at a French restaurant in Georgetown, and, had he dwelt for any extended time among the working class, would be lucky to escape without his underwear being yanked up over his ears.

George, stick to writing about baseball. I don't know if your analytical skills are any better, probably not, and let's hope it doesn't somehow fool people into thinking you are "regular folks," you're not, but making the heroic assumption that the things you write matter at all, at least the damage you can do from misinforming people will be limited to baseball rather than having the potential to cost people their jobs.

Posted by Mark Thoma on Sunday, April 20, 2008 at 11:21 AM in Economics, Inflation, Monetary Policy, Unemployment

Permalink TrackBack (0) Comments (24)

0 Replies

I don't think Joe the Jag ever read the New York Times--He certainly missed this article:

The New York Times( certainly not a right wing source) reported on the findings of a consortium that went to Florida and did exhaustive work on the count for the presidential election of 2000.

Jag from Chicago does not know about this.

Note:

Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote
By FORD FESSENDEN and JOHN M. BRODER Acomprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year's presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward.

Contrary to what many partisans of former Vice President Al Gore have charged, the United States Supreme Court did not award an election to Mr. Bush that otherwise would have been won by Mr. Gore. A close examination of the ballots found that Mr. Bush would have retained a slender margin over Mr. Gore if the Florida court's order to recount more than 43,000 ballots had not been reversed by the United States Supreme Court.

Even under the strategy that Mr. Gore pursued at the beginning of the Florida standoff ? filing suit to force hand recounts in four predominantly Democratic counties ? Mr. Bush would have kept his lead, according to the ballot review conducted for a consortium of news organizations.

But the consortium, looking at a broader group of rejected ballots than those covered in the court decisions, 175,010 in all, found that Mr. Gore might have won if the courts had ordered a full statewide recount of all the rejected ballots. This also assumes that county canvassing boards would have reached the same conclusions about the disputed ballots that the consortium's independent observers did. The findings indicate that Mr. Gore might have eked out a victory if he had pursued in court a course like the one he publicly advocated when he called on the state to "count all the votes."

In addition, the review found statistical support for the complaints of many voters, particularly elderly Democrats in Palm Beach County, who said in interviews after the election that confusing ballot designs may have led them to spoil their ballots by voting for more than one candidate.

More than 113,000 voters cast ballots for two or more presidential candidates. Of those, 75,000 chose Mr. Gore and a minor candidate; 29,000 chose Mr. Bush and a minor candidate. Because there was no clear indication of what the voters intended, those numbers were not included in the consortium's final tabulations.

Thus the most thorough examination of Florida's uncounted ballots provides ammunition for both sides in what remains the most disputed and mystifying presidential election in modern times. It illuminates in detail the weaknesses of Florida's system that prevented many from voting as they intended to. But it also provides support for the result that county election officials and the courts ultimately arrived at ? a Bush victory by the tiniest of margins.

The study, conducted over the last 10 months by a consortium of eight news organizations assisted by professional statisticians, examined numerous hypothetical ways of recounting the Florida ballots. Under some methods, Mr. Gore would have emerged the winner; in others, Mr. Bush. But in each one, the margin of victory was smaller than the 537- vote lead that state election officials ultimately awarded Mr. Bush.

For example, if Florida's 67 counties had carried out the hand recount of disputed ballots ordered by the Florida court on Dec. 8, applying the standards that election officials said they would have used, Mr. Bush would have emerged the victor by 493 votes. Florida officials had begun such a recount the next day, but the effort was halted that afternoon when the United States Supreme Court ruled in a 5-to-4 vote that a statewide recount using varying standards threatened "irreparable harm" to Mr. Bush.

But the consortium's study shows that Mr. Bush would have won even if the justices had not stepped in (and had further legal challenges not again changed the trajectory of the battle), answering one of the abiding mysteries of the Florida vote.

0 Replies

Joe the JAg wrote:

That doesn't mean that every vote must be recounted. If some precincts are having problems with their voting machines, that doesn't mean that the entire state's ballots must be recounted. Indeed, that's how it is normally done, and since it was a state election, it is assumed that the state is in the best position to determine which votes should be recounted and which votes shouldn't.

The Florida courts determined that only certain counties needed to be recounted, due to the nature of the ballots used (the infamous "butterfly ballot"). The US Supreme Court said that that wasn't fair, because other ballots wouldn't be recounted, and it made the plainly impermissible factual finding that "the recount process underway was probably being conducted in an unconstitutional manner." Then it said there wasn't time left to come up with a more fair recount method, so it let the pre-recount vote totals stand. Now that, I submit, is idiotic. No one has a right to prevent somebody else's ballot from being counted, which is pretty much what happened. I don't see the equal protection interest here, except that of the voters who didn't get a chance to have their ballots considered in the recount.

***************************************************************

Joe the Jag won't rebut the following because he practically wets his pants in fear when he sees any of my posts:
Note:
The Remedies Stage--At this final point in the judicial process, a court sets forth the remedies for the law violations which it has found to exist. The remedies fashioned by the two FSC decisions are as troubling as its other rulings and reasonings. In its first decision, the FSC's remedy was to extend the deadline for votes to be filed with the state to November 26 (beyond the statutory deadline). Why November 26? Apparently because the seven FSC justices in that case determined for subjective, unexplained reasons that such remedy was appropriate and valid. But in the second case, extension to November 26 is no is no longer an adequate remedy in the FSC's mind because the 4-person majority writing on December 8 ordered manual recounts to continue. The FSC thus first arbitrarily created a remedy and then arbitrarily replaced it with another remedy requested by the Gore campaign.
Additionally, Chief Justice Wells in the second case asserts that the majority's remedy of Florida judges' creating vote-counting standards lacks authority under the U. S. Constitution and, "creates an overflowing basket of practical problems." Both he and Justice Harding contend that neither existing law nor practical circumstances make possible any adequate judicial remedy for the state's election problems. As Harding says, "Fairness is achieved by following the rules [not creating new ones after the fact] (emphases added). Any court which commits the errors in exercising its remedial powers as has the FSC is clearly engaging in judicial activism.

****************************************************************

NOTE-- THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT NOTED THAT

NEITHER EXISTING LAW NOR PRACTICAL CIRCUMSTANCES MAKE POSSIBLE ANY ADEQUATE JUDICIAL REMEDY FOR THE STATE'S ELECTION PROCESS.

***************

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote( in answer to Cyclops's insults:

I could come here every day and examine what a colossal ass hole you are. You make it easy to do, but I choose not to because I am actually better then you. Pretty much in every way imaginable. I am smarter then you, I am wealthier then you, I have better beliefs then you, my wife is prettier then yours, my car is better then yours, my bank account is bigger then yours, my job is better then yours, I spend my time online better then you do, I cook better then you, the list goes on and on.

But, see, I know this already so I don't need to impress my online friends by being a douche bag to other patrons of A2K, unlike you. Instead, I insult the people that you align with and explore their failures, and by reflection, yours. You have no subtlety. You are like an 13 year old young man that just realized that his cock can get hard and wants to show everyone whether anyone else wants to see it or not. Believe me, no one else is impressed with your 3 inch cock. Well, maybe a few are, but that's only because they are of similar mind.

So, enjoy your laughter while you're reading my posts. Someday, you'll realize that you don't need to be a rude prick to make a point and you don't need to brandish your cock about for people to like you. Someday you will understand what adulthood and conversation with people not exactly like you is actually about. Someday... maybe... won't be soon though.

*********************************************************************

McGenrtrix-- I hope you will forgive me but I would like to give you some advice.

l. You are being much too kind to Cyclops--He is nothing like a young man showing off his virility--He is most probably a superannuated hippie who hates the USA( that shows in every post he writes)

2. He is from Berkeley. That town is the laughing stock of every decent American since it is run mainly by Crypto-Communists--Any web search will reveal just how insane they are there.

3. I am sure that Cyclops never served his country in any wars. His types run to Canada or blow out an eardrum but, paradoxically, demand THEIR CIVIL RIGHTS.

You were too easy on him.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

In Heller versus the District of Columbia, Scalia, writing for the majority, held that the DC statute infringed an individual's right to bear arms for self-defense, and for self-defense against tyrrany, when this is clearly not mentioned in the second amendment.

******************************************************************

The senile Setanta again shows that he is a dim bulb.

l. Scalia DID NOT write about "self-defense against tyrrany. There is no such thing as tyrrany( sic). I am shocked, shocked, to find the self proclaimed genius Setanta making such an egregious error.

2. I am certain that Setanta never read the case--Heller Vs. DC. If he had, he would not make such an ignorant comment.

The argument, taken as a whole, revealed a Court ready " perhaps somewhat eager " to confront and decide the core question of the Second Amendment’s meaning. No one on the Court seemed interested in the District of Columbia’s backup argument " that the Second Amendment simply does not apply to the District as the federal capital city. There also was no interest in an issue that is only implicitly involved: whether, if there is an individual right, it would be applied to state and local governments, too, through incorporation into the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection of due process against state action.

0 Replies

Re: joefromchicago (Post 3663267)
Joe From Chicago is either a fraud( masquerading as a lawyer) or a barely marginal graduate of a TTT. His knowledge of law is miniscule at best.

What Joe From Chicago has obviously never read the Gore Vs. Bush.

I don't think he is capable of understanding it completely.

Five Justices in Bush vs. Gore sensed that the Florida Appelate Court was embarked on a path that IMPAIRED rather than promoted constitutional values.

What you do not seem to understand, Jag from Chicago, is that the PROBLEM with the Florida Supreme Court's decision was the STANDARDLESS CHARACTER OF THE RECOUNT THAT IT ORDERED.
THE LEGAL REMEDY WAS TO DIRECT THAT COURT TO ADOPT STANDARDS.

If, under Florida law time did not permit this, the Florida Court was expected to dismiss the suit.

I am sure that Jag from Chicago thinks that Bush vs. Gore was not adjudicated properly. That is because he is a sophomoric left wing dabbler.

He would critique Bush vs, Gore which, for anyone that really studies and knows the case, has CONSTITUTIONAL reasoning behind it, but he would leave abominations like Roe Vs. Wade go. Yes, Baby killers like Jag from Chicago would puncture their skulls and kill them based on?

0 Replies

Nimh wrote:

A self-respecting liberal should avoid mixing with 9/11 truthers and challenge their conspiracy theories whenever one tries to sell them to him. For me that's a kind of litmus test about whether to take someone seriously. What's your boundaries on the right? At what point do you explicitly distance yourself from a fellow rightwinger if he is just too nutty? I suppose that you would instantly and openly reject any David Duke-like supremacist type - is that the only thing that's off-limits?

*****************************************************

Really? Well, I think that no one could be more insulting than a foreigner like Nimh who hates the USA, wishes it would collapse and thinks that Socialism is the only government that is viable.

Nimh ,like most foreigners , knows only what he reads in the Leftist New York Times and rags like "The Nation".He deserves to live in the pit that is Hungary!!!

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

If, as you say, you do not believe that people's money which they have earned should be taken from them to give to someone who has not earned it, how do you intend to pay soldiers, sailors and airmen? What do you intend to do about contributors to social security who are disabled but who have taken out in disability payments more than they contributed? What do you intend to do about the survivors (widows or widowers) of social security survivors? What would you do about the inmates of Federal penitentiaries? How would you procure the equipment and supplies needed by the armed forces?

*******************************************************************

Oh, the government can redistribute the monies in which ever way they wish.

Obama, as a Community Organizer in the ghetto of Chicago, undoubtedly helped many a poor woman with six or seven children to get what she deserved from the welfare department.

What the senile Setanta does not know is that the welfare charade was slowed down by Congress and signed by Slick Willie Clinton( he had no choice) in the nineties. Now, Obama, with loyalties and ties to his "homies" all over the USA will take from the rich to give to the poor.

The senile Setanta does not know that the tax rate on people making over $250,000 a year will rise substantially.

The dimwit left, envious of anyone who has worked hard, says--Yes- sock it to them.

What the redistributionists do not know is that if people think they are overtaxed, they will refrain from investing in anything that requires risk taking such as OPENING NEW FACTORIES OR INDUSTRIES OR SHOPS.

Then, the left wing will howl even loudly when the Unemployment rate reaches 12%.

0 Replies

Re: Setanta (Post 3662319)
Setanta wrote:

You're hopelessly out of your depth here. It does not matter how illegal any activity is, nor the possession of any contraband, the police cannot enter a private residence without obtaining a search warrant, or unless they are in pursuit of someone fleeing the scene of a crime. If they do, any evidence they acquire in that manner is not admissible in court.

McGentrix responded:
Federal Appeals Court Rules Police Can Search Without Warrant

Quote:
In a March 24 opinion, the US 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans has ruled that police do not need an arrest or search warrant to conduct a search if the search is a "protective sweep" to ensure the safety of officers. The ruling builds on a 1990 US Supreme Court ruling, Maryland v. Buie, which gave the constitutional okay to "protective sweep" searches conducted to ensure the safety of officers during an arrest. Under the 5th Circuit's ruling in USA v. Gould, such searches may be legally made without a search warrant or an arrest.

********************************************************************

McGentrix--Thank you--You jammed it right up the Senile Setanta's diseased anus and then broke it off. He actually thinks he is a legal authority.

0 Replies

Okie wrote:

Re: Setanta (Post 3662323)
Setanta wrote:

I've never said that a right to privacy does determine the legality of a behavior.,
Thats the point. But the Roe v Wade decision did just that, didn't it?
Quote:
But it does determine the actions which the police can legally take in an attempt to apprehend someone in an illegal activity or in the possession of contraband.

You can bet that nothing i've written supports your argument. I don't see any evidence that you have an argument, because your remarks have to do with claims about illegal activities, and abortion is not illegal.

And the supposed reason abortion cannot be made illegal is the trumped up reason, "right to privacy
*************************************************************And, Okie, where did the "right to privacy come from"? There is no RIGHT TO PRIVACY in the Constitution. Where did it come from?

The right to privacy came from what many legal scholars call the most laughable and convoluted argument of all. Only people intent on killing babies could have created such nonsense which is not found in the Constitution.

I will quote from "Slouching Towards Gomorrah" by Judge Robert Bork--P>103.

"The extra-constitutional individualism that undergirds the "constitutional" right to abortion was made clearest in the joint opinions of three justices in "Planned Parenthood vs. Casey. These justices invented a HERETOFORE UNHEARD OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO 'PERSONAL DIGNITY AND AUTONOMY. They explained--"At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe and of the mystery of human life. It is not recorded that any American government from the founding on, has ever thought it worthwhile to compel anyone's concept of meaning or of the mystery of human life. What this judicial grandeloquence means, aside from the right to have an abortion, NOBODY KNOWS. This particular statement is known as THE MYSTERY CLAUSE."

0 Replies

Herr Diest apparently never read History.

He peddles his usual unsourced bullshit.

Perhaps Herr Diest can tell us all the religious impulse, the major religious principle, that spurred on Genghis Khan?

There is none.

Perhaps Herr Diest can explain the religious rationale employed by Joe Stalin who killed Sixty Million?

Maybe Herr Diest can tell us of the religious dogma employed by Adolf Hitler when he killed at least twenty million people?

It could be that Herr Diest can show us the "Bible" used by Pol Pot when he indulged in his exterminations.

And. last, but not least,Herr Diest can sketch out the holy impulses of Chairman Mao when he murdered millions.

Morons like Herr Diest love to read the ninteenth century pseudo-Histories of the atheists to show how the Europeans killed each other BECAUSE of religious rivalry. What a bullshitter like Herr Diest apparently does not know is that if you count the number of dead in JUST THE TWENTIETH CENTURY, that number far surpasses the number killed in the religious wars in Europe and the colonial conquests.

I am sure that Herr Diest does not know the number of people alive in the year 1600. He is supremely ignorant concerning important data. The entire population of the world at that time is estimated to be 450 Million people.

Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot and Mao KILLED at least 100 Million in the twentieth century alone-THEY HAD NO FORMAL RELIGIOUS IMPULSE.

Herr Diest will, of course, be unable to find any other era in which so many people were killed>

So, Herr Diest, either do the research or cut the bullshit.

0 Replies

I can PROVE that Joe the Jag is a fraud.

Here is what the moron wrote on a previous post.

Is it better to go to an Ivy League school?
What's the difference between a top-rated law school and one that's not so highly rated?
I may be expelled from the secret brotherhood for saying this, but the difference in the education that you would get in a top-tier law school and the one you would get in a second- or third-tier school is minimal. You might get a more stimulating intellectual experience at Harvard or Yale, but you'll probably learn just as much about torts and contracts at Boston College or the Univ. of Connecticut.

The real difference between law schools isn't what happens in the classrooms, it's what happens in the interview rooms. Better law schools attract better law firm recruiters. The big law firms that typically interview at a dozen law schools every year will be focusing on top-tier schools and offering those students the high-paying jobs. Students at lower-ranked schools can still get jobs, but they often have to make contact with the firms directly (rather than waiting for the interviewers to come to campus). With the top-ranked law schools, then, you purchase access to jobs. And, given the competition and rewards, that access is often worth the price.

*******************************************************************

What the fraud Joe the Jag from Chicago won't tell you is that the best students go to the Ivy League Law Schools. The moron says that "the best schools attract the better firm recruiters." The recruiters are irrelevant.

The TOP FIRMS. The firms which pay beginners $200,000 a year take no one from the kind of Law School from which Joe the Jag graduated. Joe the JAg obviously has an inferiority complex and tries to denigrate the better law schools. The people who will learn MORE about "torts and contracts" are the people in the Ivy League schools. The people in the top ten Law Schools as listed in the US news and world report each year are the best lawyers,

Then the imbecile( who really proves here that he knows nothing about law )says: "Students at lower ranked schools can still get jobs but they often have to make contact with the firms directly.

WRONG -MR. JOE THE JAG WRONG.

Joe the Jag gave a wrong answer. He claimed--The difference between a top rated school and a second or third tier school is minimal.

What a moron!

He obviously does not know that the best firms( take two for example in Chicago--Jenner and Block and/or Sidley and Austin) DO NOT, I REPEAT DO NOT TAKE PEOPLE FROM **** SCHOOLS LIKE THE ONE THAT JOE THE JAG ATTENDED UNLESS THEY ARE THE TOP STUDENT.

If Joe the Jag looked at the schools from which the lawyers in the two law firms above graduated, he would find that MOST of the lawyers went to the top fifteen firms listed by US News and World Report.

So, Joe the JAg is WRONG. It is much better to go to one of the fifteen top law schools because you have a much much better chance of being accepted by a top law firm.

So what?

Beginners at top law firms make $200,000 a year. People like Joe the Jag who went to a TTT(third tier toilet) law school end up chasing ambulances or getting gangbangers off a minor drug charge.

Joe the Jag won't admit this but his inferior education shines right through his response to the question he asked. He is clearly envious of Ivy League Graduates.

What BullshitJoe spiels:---A University of Connecticut graduate learns as much as an Ivy League Law Student. Unless he or she was the best student in that year's class or the editor of the law review, they wouldn't last fifteen minutes in a top law firm.
******
That is why Joe the Jag could not clearly explain why the USSC was wrong in Bush vs. Gore. He went to a TTT.

That is why Joe the Jag could not rebut any rebuttals made to him. He went to a TTT.

0 Replies

@genoves,

I never read The Nation actually - not my thing. I don't hate the USA - we've gone over this before, at the time of one of your previous incarnation, when I responded to the same accusation by writing about everything I love about America and its culture. There are many things I don't like, of course, especially about its politics, but America is still the cultural cradle of many things I hold dear. I also dont want the US to collapse. I just want it to do the right thing - because with unparalleled power comes unique responsibility.

I am, however, indeed extremely happy to live in Hungary, and hope to be able to continue living here for a long time. Even if its politics positively suck, and make US politics seem a source of hope in comparison.

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

Diest TKO wrote:

When asked to give single word yes/no answers, you become very flexible Fox.

Teflon Foxfyre. Nothing sticks, you can't be held accountable for anything you say or do if you just makes what you say and does too vague or too contrary.

Exactly. And when those pesky questions become too insistent, she throws in one red herring after another to deflect the subject, and if that doesn't work, starts demanding everyone to instead discuss something completely unrelated (Sotomayor).

2 Replies

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

You have no subtlety. You are like an 13 year old young man [..]. Someday you will understand what adulthood and conversation with people not exactly like you is actually about.

I heartily share your sentiments about Cyclo's rude prickness and general cock-brandishing behaviour. It's tiresome, and makes me scroll past his posts when substantively, I usually agree with him. Sorry, Cyclo, but you're one of the worst on the left here when it comes to acting like a total prick. And of course you don't care about insulting rightwingers - I buy your argument about why you have stopped giving a ****, just like McG doesnt give a **** about the liberals he insults. But you know, it's not just the conservatives you insult who are annoyed and fatigued by your shtick.

Just to get everybody up in arms against me though, seriously, McG? You, of all people, accusing someone else of lacking "subtlety", being a "rude prick" to people he doesn't agree with, acting like an adolescent on these boards, and not having adult conversations with people here about politics?

I dunno, I've long ago put you on ignore (and ironically only read this post of yours thanks to Genoves quoting it), so maybe you've radically changed your ways over the past year or so. But if I remember one conservative who specialised in puerile one-liners to slam liberals, resorting to crude insults when frustrated, and posting only really short "you're talking bullshit"-type posts or lengthy copy/pastes from the likes of Ann Coulter 90% of the time, it was you. So you're right on about Cyclo, but really - you, preaching subtlety, of all things? Is that a flying pig I see or just a swine who flew?

OK, having doubtlessly pissed off everyone now (if with nothing else by that atrocious pun there at the end), I'm off. Kids, behave.

1 Reply

@nimh,

Quote:

Exactly. And when those pesky questions become too insistent, she throws in one red herring after another to deflect the subject, and if that doesn't work, starts demanding everyone to instead discuss something completely unrelated (Sotomayor).

Or begins to fling out accusations that she's being personally attacked, and dredging up what is just about the most abused and misunderstood term online--"ad homs." I ceased to care whether or not Fox were insulted by what i wrote a very long time ago. When she first came to this site, i asked her why we should accept her views rather than our own. She said because she is well-educated and well-informed; the implication being clear that none of the rest of us were well-educated or well-informed. Since that time, the evidence has been that she is not particularly well-educated, and that "well-informed" in her lexicon means that she always keeps up with right-wing, Christian talking points. She immediately takes offense at anyone questioning either her recollections of her putative education, or the reliability of her sources. Eventually, of course, ignoring the venom spewed by those with whom she mostly agrees politically, she libels all those she deems liberals.

She doesn't do irony, obviously.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Your argument seems to be that our government has already moved from the Founding Fathers' concept of the General Welfare to allowing Congress to distributing the people's money for the privilege and/or advantage of special classes and we should just accept it as the way it is.

No, my argument consists of three points:

The founding fathers spoke plain English.
Noah Webster's first edition (1828) documents the meaning of plain English terms, as the founding generation used them.
Therefore, we can discern whether a modern phenomenon conforms with a term used in the constitution by looking up the term in Webster (1828) and seeing if it covers the phenomenon.

This concept is really quite simple. It's called "reading comprehension".

Foxfyre wrote:

Do you believe we should just accept things for the way they are in all cases? Illegal immigration? Graffiti? Subsidies to certain industries? Failing education? A crumbling manufacturing base?

No. You should change the things you don't like. You should change them by convincing your fellow Americans that the current administration isn't up for the job, and get them to elect a new Congress in 2010, and a new president in 2012. But judicial activism is the wrong instrument for social change. That's why I opposed it when liberals advocated it -- I have battle scars from both Debra Law and joefromchicago to prove it. But what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the ganter: If judicial activism is wrong for liberals, it's wrong for conservatives too. You, by contrast, seem to have become quite fond of it, now that the American people have been so un-American as to dump your party.

Foxfyre wrote:

Do you see the only role of government to be one of adding spending, programs, initiatives, taxes, welfare, etc.? Is there no place in the equation to roll back these to a time when we did it better?

That's a good question. But it's a political question, which has nothing to do with the constitutionality of expanding the welfare state. I'll answer it anyway: Yes, there is a role for government to decrease the scope of the welfare state, if that's what the American people elect it to do. But they haven't.

2 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Do you see the only role of government to be one of adding spending, programs, initiatives, taxes, welfare, etc.? Is there no place in the equation to roll back these to a time when we did it better?

That's a good question. But it's a political question, which has nothing to do with the constitutionality of expanding the welfare state. I'll answer it anyway: Yes, there is a role for government to decrease the scope of the welfare state, if that's what the American people elect it to do. But they haven't.

For me this is the main issue of conservatism: the scope of government. I agree with Thomas that it is a political issue rather than a constitutional issue.

0 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know