55
   

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

 
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Jun, 2009 06:06 pm
510 pages of posts, probably 8 actually deal with the topic, 350 attack the original poster, 100 discuss the attacks and 50 to cheer on the 350 worth of attacking.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Jun, 2009 06:25 pm
@parados,
That's the funny thing about Foxie; she can describe what a ad hom is and is an expert in its use. LOL
0 Replies
 
JamesMorrison
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Jun, 2009 06:25 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre asked
Quote:
:"Sonia Sotomayor said: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life." Should this statement disqualify her for appointment as Supreme Court Justice? Some think so. I don't. Do you? Why?"

Good question but, given political realities I feel it is moot (This in no way argues against the helpful discussion that the question legitimately frames). Yes, those conservatives that point to this statement have a legitimate reason for pique. But, she will be confirmed. She replaces a liberal member of the court so the balance on the court will not be terribly altered by her confirmation. With that in mind, MACs in the Senate should not only not waste their time on this nomination, but keep their powder dry for fights that might actually change Americans' thoughts on the wisdom of the present Admin.

Charles Krauthammer has it right "Rebut but Confirm". He explains by answering another good question:
Quote:
"What should a principled conservative do? Use the upcoming hearings not to deny her the seat, but to illuminate her views. No magazine gossip from anonymous court clerks. No "temperament" insinuations. Nothing ad hominem. The argument should be elevated, respectful and entirely about judicial philosophy. "


Fox, if I may further disrupt your question to liberals: I continually see those on this thread disagreeing with MAC principles misunderstanding that MACs or Classical Liberals, as you have defined, can be equated with any particular politician who is a registered member of the Republican Party. This then, they feel, allows them to argue against MAC principles because this particular Republican, like Arlen Specter, Tom Delay, or whoever is not following MAC principles and, therefore, those principles are negated. Nothing can be further from the truth. I would ask Foxfyre to repost that definition but most on this thread have (or had the opportunity to) read it numerous times and that request would be superfluous. Simply put, if the Republican politician’s actions don’t agree with MAC principles the only conclusion that can be reasonably reached is that MAC principles weren’t followed by that politician, period.

I find as I mosey on towards old age that the theory of MAC principles espoused by the founders is not unlike the theory of evolution: with time its truth becomes ever more obvious, the evidence mounts increasingly, and for those with open minds, ever more relative and important to the American way of life. Perhaps MAC principles are too harsh, too reminiscent of how hard life can actually be. Scratching out an existence can be, well, existentialistic. Just ask all those people in foreign countries that would give much (and have) to come here...just for the opportunity to do better for themselves and their kin. We are blessed, perhaps by God, but, I think even the founding fathers would assign much credit to their concept of meritocracy combined with democracy tempered with a law of the land that demands equality with a pinch of empathy.

JM


ican711nm
 
  0  
Reply Thu 4 Jun, 2009 06:41 pm
Obama, the rest of his MAL administration, and the MAL Congressional majority are not supporting the Constitution, because they are instead supporting the transfer of wealth from those who have lawfully earned it to those who have not lawfully earned it.

http://obama.3cdn.net/8335008b3be0e6391e_foi8mve29.pdf
BARACK OBAMA’S PLAN TO STIMULATE THE ECONOMY
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/STIMULUS_FINAL_0217.html
GETTING TO $787 BILLION WITH BARACK STIMULUS
http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Butler/
GENERAL WELFARE OF THE USA
Quote:
Since the foundation of the nation, sharp differences of opinion have persisted as to the true interpretation of the phrase. Madison asserted it amounted to no more than a reference to the other powers enumerated in the subsequent clauses of the same section; that, as the United States is a government of limited and enumerated powers, the grant of power to tax and spend for the general national welfare must be confined to the enumerated legislative fields committed to the Congress. In this view the phrase is mere tautology, for taxation and appropriation are or may be necessary incidents of the exercise of any of the enumerated legislative powers. Hamilton, on the other hand, maintained the clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to ap- [297 U.S. 1, 66] propriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States. Each contention has had the support of those whose views are entitled to weight.
...

But the adoption of the broader construction leaves the power to spend subject to limitations.

As Story says: 'The Constitution was, from its very origin, contemplated to be the frame of a national government, of special and enumerated powers, and not of general and unlimited powers.' 13

Again he says: 'A power to lay taxes for the common defence and general welfare of the United States is not in common sense a general power. It is limited to those objects. It cannot constitutionally transcend them.' 14

That the qualifying phrase must be given effect all advocates of broad construction admit. Hamilton, in his [297 U.S. 1, 67] well known Report on Manufactures, states that the purpose must be 'general, and not local.' 15 Monroe, an advocate of Hamilton's doctrine, wrote: 'Have Congress a right to raise and appropriate the money to any and to every purpose according to their will and pleasure? They certainly have not.' 16 Story says that if the tax be not proposed for the common defense or general welfare, but for other objects wholly extraneous, it would be wholly indefensible upon constitutional principles. 17 And he makes it clear that the powers of taxation and appropriation extend only to matters of national, as distinguished from local, welfare.

All the MALs including Obama are violating their oaths of office:
(1) Article II Section 1, The President ... shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
(2) Article VI The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution.

George Orwell in NINETEEN EIGHTY-FOUR, Part III, Chapter III, wrote:

[The MALs, if not stopped, will eventually say,] 'The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just round the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?'



0 Replies
 
genoves
 
  -4  
Reply Thu 4 Jun, 2009 11:21 pm
A very good post, Ican. You have obviously read a great deal. Most of the left wing will not respond to your posts because they have neither the talent or the rationales to do so.
0 Replies
 
genoves
 
  -3  
Reply Thu 4 Jun, 2009 11:27 pm
James Morrison--Thanks for your great contributions. I rarely see a left winger respond to your posts. No matter, there are many who read what you write.

I read the fine column by Krauthammer--a great mind--and he hit the nail on the head. You identified it with your quote from his column.

"What should a principled conservative do? Use the upcoming hearings not to deny her the seat, but to illuminate her views. No magazine gossip from anonymous court clerks. No "temperament" insinuations. Nothing ad hominem. The argument should be elevated, respectful and entirely about judicial philosophy. "
end of quote
She will be confirmed of course. She should be confirmed even though her judicial philosophy may not conform to the philosophy of the founders who wrote the Constitution.

I do not think that the Republicans on the committee who will question her should sink to the rabid level of Ted Kennedy when he savaged a very fine jurist who was also nominated but turned down by the Senate--Robert Bork.
0 Replies
 
genoves
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 4 Jun, 2009 11:39 pm
Nimh wrote:

genoves wrote:
I have pissed on your shoes repeatedly and you are too much of a wimp to even try to respond. [..] I jammed it up your diseased anus with evidence.

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

Well, Nimh, I don't know what they do in Hungary but where I grew up, when someone slapped you in the face or pissed on your shoes, if you did not respond in some way, you were a wimp. It's called cowardice.


Now, some on these threads feel that if they let me piss on thier shoes and stand there stoically or turn their backs and walk away, I will not continue to urinate on their shoes.

But I will--And one of the reasons I will continue to do so is that when I posted last year, some of the left wingers thought they could intimidate me by calling me names and posting pictures which supposedly made fun of a name I had acquired from them.

You don't remember that, do you,Nimh?

So, as Cyrano De Bergerac said to his inarticulate foe( after his enemy said--Your nose is rather large)

Oh, no, good sir, you are too simple, You could have said a great many other things--for example thus:

So, Nimh save your sermonizing for someone who has not been attacked by people, who, in my estimation, had seen that my arguments were difficult to counter and tried to intimidate me by posting pictures of animals.

Cyrano ended his duel with: You shall die excellently.

I will continue to remark-- You shall be skewered perfectly.
0 Replies
 
genoves
 
  -3  
Reply Thu 4 Jun, 2009 11:46 pm
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:

510 pages of posts, probably 8 actually deal with the topic, 350 attack the original poster, 100 discuss the attacks and 50 to cheer on the 350 worth of attacking.

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

Of course, McGentrix. Don't you recognize the syndrome? The left(as depicted by the famous Cyclops) cannot counter the arguments laid down by Foxfyre so they do the adhominem bit.

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

I am sure that someone like Nimh would accuse me of being a leading proponent of adhominem. I would cheerfully agree with him.

Why?
Because I was subject to the same kind of abuse you received from the RADICAL LIBERAL, Cyclops.

Anyone who responds to my posts politely,receives a polite response.

The problem, McGentrix, is that the left cannot abide being shown to be incorrect so they either attack savagely as Cyclops did to you, or they try to mock (as they did to me).

Please do not allow posters like Cyclops to keep you from posting. You have as much as a right on these threads as he does.
0 Replies
 
genoves
 
  -3  
Reply Thu 4 Jun, 2009 11:52 pm
Setanta( who wont read this since he is afraid of debating with me) wrote:

Quote:
Argumentum ad Hominem (abusive and circumstantial): the fallacy of attacking the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument instead of trying to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument. Often the argument is characterized simply as a personal attack. (emphasis added).

Setanta is quite right.

What would Setanta call the posting of a picture of an animal and giving that animal the name of a poster on these threads?

But, no rational clear thinking left winger would do that, would he/she?

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

Setanta and others moan about AD HOMINEMS but will NOT admit their complicity in the same practice.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  6  
Reply Fri 5 Jun, 2009 06:43 am
James Morrison wrote:
Fox, if I may further disrupt your question to liberals: I continually see those on this thread disagreeing with MAC principles misunderstanding that MACs or Classical Liberals, as you have defined, can be equated with any particular politician who is a registered member of the Republican Party.

It's true enough that Republicans are not classical liberals. But If this is an important distinction for you, the time to make it was 2003/2004: when the Republican party controlled every branch of government, and when president Bush was popular and up for re-election. If you make a big deal of this distinction now, you're no longer taking a stand on principle. You're no longer distancing yourself from the Republicans under Bush. All you're distancing yourself from are those 30% approval ratings that the Bush administration left office with.

I know what I'm talking about. Back in 2003/2004, when my libertarian ideology was purer than today, I frequently argued that Bush's policies made no sense in terms of their stated goals, given conservative theories of how the world works. I remember being generally lonely when I argued this point. In particular, I was opposed at that time by all those correspondents who insist today that there's a big distinction between conservatives and Republicans.

So please forgive us for not buying the distinction from those correspondents. It's not about ad-hominems, it's about experience.
Setanta
 
  4  
Reply Fri 5 Jun, 2009 06:47 am
@joefromchicago,
Quote:
You're all wrong. An argumentum ad hominem is a term to describe an argument where someone is being mean to Foxfyre.


As usual, Joe hits the nail squarely on the head.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 5 Jun, 2009 09:24 am
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:

510 pages of posts, probably 8 actually deal with the topic, 350 attack the original poster, 100 discuss the attacks and 50 to cheer on the 350 worth of attacking.


Laughing

And so goes life on A2K. Makes you really appreciate the few, both Left and Right, who still have a clue and who are interested in discussing the topic, yes?
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Fri 5 Jun, 2009 09:36 am
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

510 pages of posts, probably 8 actually deal with the topic, 350 attack the original poster, 100 discuss the attacks and 50 to cheer on the 350 worth of attacking.


Laughing

And so goes life on A2K. Makes you really appreciate the few, both Left and Right, who still have a clue and who are interested in discussing the topic, yes?


You would get more discussion on the topic, if you would refrain from shouting down anyone who disagrees with you on what aspects of the topic to discuss.

I think you would also admit that this topic gets derailed by current events from time to time - many of which are posted by and commented upon by you. That leads to off-topic discussion, etc..

Cyclotpichorn
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Jun, 2009 09:49 am
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:

James Morrison wrote:
Fox, if I may further disrupt your question to liberals: I continually see those on this thread disagreeing with MAC principles misunderstanding that MACs or Classical Liberals, as you have defined, can be equated with any particular politician who is a registered member of the Republican Party.

It's true enough that Republicans are not classical liberals. But If this is an important distinction for you, the time to make it was 2003/2004: when the Republican party controlled every branch of government, and when president Bush was popular and up for re-election. If you make a big deal of this distinction now, you're no longer taking a stand on principle. You're no longer distancing yourself from the Republicans under Bush. All you're distancing yourself from are those 30% approval ratings that the Bush administration left office with.

I know what I'm talking about. Back in 2003/2004, when my libertarian ideology was purer than today, I frequently argued that Bush's policies made no sense in terms of their stated goals, given conservative theories of how the world works. I remember being generally lonely when I argued this point. In particular, I was opposed at that time by all those correspondents who insist today that there's a big distinction between conservatives and Republicans.

So please forgive us for not buying the distinction from those correspondents. It's not about ad-hominems, it's about experience.


Of course this thread didn't exist in 2003/2004, but I can't imagine any of the MACs approving of many of Bush's fiscal policies other than the tax cuts which probably all of us did approve. I believe I might have been the very first to oppose his prescription drugs for seniors initiative, for instance, and certainly never changed my mind about that. I have never approved of his immigration policy and became so frustrated with it that I started another thread on that which also acquired a shelf life approximating a mop handle. If you are referring to Iraq, I don't know if that would constitute a MAC principle or a conservative/liberal principle, but I believe most MACs would probably support the Commander in Chief and our troops when we have boots on the ground in harm's way. I think if MACs had been in charge, we might have handled that more efficiently and effectively, but again we're dealing with hindsight about that.

In fairness to you, it is probably true that all of us did try to put as good a face on fuzzy policy as was possible to do. It is hard to accept when your elected leaders and/or designated Party are spending excessively and irresponsibly and are thereby violating the trust we put in them. Most of us did like President Bush and we wanted him to succeed just as Obama supporters are trying to put the best possible face on the indefensible now. And MACs have feet of clay just like everybody else and were probably as susceptible to pockets of denial as anybody else. When in doubt, keep your mouth shut and hope. When all doubt is removed, then intellectual honesty and character requires one to speak up.



genoves
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 5 Jun, 2009 10:19 am
The news is not good for Obuma.

Note:

Republicans Blast Obama Administration as Jobless Rate Hits 9.4 Percent
Republicans cite the latest unemployment figures as evidence that President Obama's $787 stimulus package isn't working.



Friday, June 05, 2009




In pushing to get his $787 billion stimulus package passed in Congress, President Obama's economic team said that without the federal spending jolt, the unemployment rate would hit 8.8 percent by the last fiscal quarter of 2010. With the package, his advisers argued, the unemployment rate would reach only 7 percent.

Republicans quickly seized on the new jobless figures to charge the Obama administration with "hanging middle-class Americans out to dry."

"More than 2.5 million Americans have lost their jobs this year and what have the Democrats in charge of Washington given them? A trillion-dollar 'stimulus' that isn't producing jobs immediately, as the administration promised and the Vice President Biden admits is ripping off the American people," Minority Leader John Boehner said in a statement.

"Another $400 billion spending bill loaded with 9,000 unscrutinized earmarks. And bailouts that reward irresponsible behavior and bad business decisions.

"These policies are harming middle class families when they can least afford it and adding to the massive debt inherited by future generations," he added
*********************************************************

Obuma PROMISED that if the stimulus was passed the UNEMPLOYMENT RATE WOULD HIT ONLY 7 % IN THE LAST QUARTER OF 2009. Obuma also said that IF THE STIMULUS WAS NOT PASSED UNEMPLOYMENT WOULD RISE TO 8.8%..

It would seem that no one told Obuma that the Unemployment Rate is already at 9.4% and rising and we have not yet finished the second quarter.

Like all of his schemes, Obuma's promises are empty!!!
0 Replies
 
genoves
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 5 Jun, 2009 10:24 am
Obuma again proven to be tied up with convicted felons and sleazy operators in Chicago. The rest of the country does not know.

Obama's ex-boss a Rezko partner
HOME BUILDERS | Lawyer consulted on final Rezmar redevelopment
Comments

April 23, 2007

When Barack Obama took a job at a small Chicago law firm in 1993, the first name on the door of the firm was Allison S. Davis.

Five years later, having left his Davis Miner Barnhill & Galland firm, Davis invested in Antoin "Tony'' Rezko's final government-subsidized, low-income housing project, state records show, in a deal handled by Davis' former law firm.

Five years later, having left his Davis Miner Barnhill & Galland firm, Davis invested in Antoin "Tony'' Rezko's final government-subsidized, low-income housing project, state records show, in a deal handled by Davis' former law firm.

Davis and Rezko also went into business together, building upscale homes in the booming Kenwood neighborhood where Davis lives. The legal work on those deals was also done by Davis' former law firm, where Obama was working.

» Click to enlarge image

Allison S. Davis: Obama's boss for five years.
(Sun-Times)



RELATED STORIES
Obama and his Rezko ties

Top recipients of campaign cash

Troutman dad got rehab deal

Sun-Times questions, and Obama answers

Rezmar deals involving Davis Miner law firm

Map: Rezmar Corp.'s low-income projects

Davis and Rezko also went into business together, building upscale homes in the booming Kenwood neighborhood where Davis lives. The legal work on those deals was also done by Davis' former law firm, where Obama was working.

Davis, 67, and Rezko are still business partners "in a technical sense,'' Davis said in an interview, though he added, "There's nothing going on in the last couple years.''

He said he didn't recall how or when he met Rezko, a businessman and political fund-raiser under indictment on federal charges that include demanding kickbacks from companies seeking state pension investments under Gov. Blagojevich.

While Davis was running the law firm, he was also a board member of the Woodlawn Preservation and Investment Corp., a not-for-profit company that hooked up with Rezko's Rezmar Corp. on tax-supported projects to rehabilitate apartments for low-income tenants. Davis' firm handled the legal work on those housing deals.

Davis has long been an influential member of the Woodlawn community just south of the University of Chicago. His father was the university's first African-American professor. Since 1991, Davis has been a member of the Chicago Plan Commission, appointed by Mayor Daley, a friend.

Four years ago, Blagojevich appointed Davis to the Illinois State Board of Investment, which controls state pension funds -- one of a series of appointments the governor made at Rezko's request
0 Replies
 
genoves
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 5 Jun, 2009 10:28 am
Obuma's ex boss indicted-Allison Davis says he is still technically in business with Obuma. How many convicted and indicted persons did Obuma work with in Chicago. Of Course, he was NEVER involved in any wrong doing and NEVER knew of any corruption or, as he boasted, my administration will be TRANSPARENT. Yuk Yuk yuk.

Note:

Originally posted: May 29, 2009

Feds probe Daley nephew's city pension deal
Posted by Dan Mihalopoulos and Steve Mills at 3:10 p.m.; updated 4:38 p.m.

Federal law-enforcement authorities are probing the controversial investment of city employee pension fund dollars in a real estate firm involving Mayor Richard Daley’s nephew Robert Vanecko.

A federal grand jury issued subpoenas Wednesday to the pension funds for police, laborers and municipal employees, according to records obtained today by the Tribune.

Prosecutors with U.S. Atty. Patrick Fitzgerald’s office are demanding fund officials turn over documents regarding their dealings with DV Urban Realty, which includes Vanecko and longtime Daley ally Allison Davis. The police fund’s board voted in 2006 to invest $15 million in DV Urban, part of a $68 million deal that also involved other local government pension funds.

The federal subpoena is a virtual carbon copy of the subpoenas sent to four pension funds in March by City Hall’s inspector general, David Hoffman. But fund officials refused to comply with those requests, arguing that Hoffman’s office does not have the authority to investigate them.

Now the DV Urban deal has become the focus of the latest in a growing number of joint investigations involving the feds and Hoffman, a former assistant U.S. attorney in Chicago.

While the pension funds made public many of the documents that Hoffman sought, the police fund’s board would not release audio tapes of closed meetings where trustees discussed the deal with Vanecko and Davis’s firm.

Besides the police fund, four other pension funds " representing teachers, municipal employees, laborers and CTA workers " invested in DV Urban.

Hoffman had subpoenaed records from the funds for laborers, police and municipal employees, as well as the firefighters’ pension fund, whose leaders declined a chance to invest in DV Urban.

The pension funds for police, municipal employees and laborers provided a copies of the subpoena to the Tribune, but officials there declined to comment. DV Urban officials could not immediately be reached.



0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  3  
Reply Fri 5 Jun, 2009 10:40 am
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:
When in doubt, keep your mouth shut and hope. When all doubt is removed, then intellectual honesty and character requires one to speak up.

See, that's the part I find hardest to get. When all doubt is not removed, doesn't intellectual honesty and character require you to speak up about the doubts (and hopes), too?
Cycloptichorn
 
  3  
Reply Fri 5 Jun, 2009 10:46 am
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
When in doubt, keep your mouth shut and hope. When all doubt is removed, then intellectual honesty and character requires one to speak up.

See, that's the part I find hardest to get. When all doubt is not removed, doesn't intellectual honesty and character require you to speak up about the doubts (and hopes), too?


Only if you assume that intellectual honesty is a more important virtue than party loyalty. It certainly was not in the Bush administration or Republican congress at the time.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Jun, 2009 10:53 am
@JamesMorrison,
JamesMorrison wrote:

Foxfyre asked
Quote:
:"Sonia Sotomayor said: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life." Should this statement disqualify her for appointment as Supreme Court Justice? Some think so. I don't. Do you? Why?"

Good question but, given political realities I feel it is moot (This in no way argues against the helpful discussion that the question legitimately frames). Yes, those conservatives that point to this statement have a legitimate reason for pique. But, she will be confirmed. She replaces a liberal member of the court so the balance on the court will not be terribly altered by her confirmation. With that in mind, MACs in the Senate should not only not waste their time on this nomination, but keep their powder dry for fights that might actually change Americans' thoughts on the wisdom of the present Admin.

Charles Krauthammer has it right "Rebut but Confirm". He explains by answering another good question:
Quote:
"What should a principled conservative do? Use the upcoming hearings not to deny her the seat, but to illuminate her views. No magazine gossip from anonymous court clerks. No "temperament" insinuations. Nothing ad hominem. The argument should be elevated, respectful and entirely about judicial philosophy. "


You and I (and Krauthammer) are on the same page here. Sotomayor will be confirmed. The Republicans should absolutely air her judicial record and how her peers have judged it. She will get both props and some valid criticisms there, but the important thing is that her judicial temperament and philosophy be fully aired, politely, civilly without ad hominem or non-essential factors thrown in, so that the American people know what they are getting. These are lifetime appointments and should never be made casually or without careful consideration. But she will be confirmed and the GOP gains nothing by unnecessarily expending political capital in trying to prevent that. I would rather see the 'conservatives' demonstrate how a Supreme Court nomination hearing should be conducted. We haven't seen that since before Clarence Thomas.

What I was going for with my question re Sotomayor's controversial remark--you know the one that the Left--DTOM a notable exception--have mostly carefully avoided here--is that the remark does not disqualify her. It is her opinion and probably is imbedded in her philosophy of life as are many other equally controversial content of some of her writings and commentary. It is no more damning than should be somebody saying "Old white guys might make better supreme court decisions than a radical Latina woman with an agenda." But the point is whether her agenda will be reflected in her judicial decisions. If it will not--if she bases her judicial decisions strictly on the letter of the law--then what she says or writes or believes in her personal life have no bearing whatsoever.

As I previously posted in Walter Williams' comments, we don't want empathetic referees at sporting events. We want referees who respect and enforce the rules equally for both sides. If they do that, it doesn't matter which team they personally want to win. So also should it be with Supreme Court justices.

Quote:
Fox, if I may further disrupt your question to liberals: I continually see those on this thread disagreeing with MAC principles misunderstanding that MACs or Classical Liberals, as you have defined, can be equated with any particular politician who is a registered member of the Republican Party. This then, they feel, allows them to argue against MAC principles because this particular Republican, like Arlen Specter, Tom Delay, or whoever is not following MAC principles and, therefore, those principles are negated. Nothing can be further from the truth. I would ask Foxfyre to repost that definition but most on this thread have (or had the opportunity to) read it numerous times and that request would be superfluous. Simply put, if the Republican politician’s actions don’t agree with MAC principles the only conclusion that can be reasonably reached is that MAC principles weren’t followed by that politician, period
.

You are invited to interrupt as much as you wish to do so James. The topic is certainly wide and broad enough to include a lot of ideas, concepts, and principles within it, and I hope we will continue to talk about them.

I think the phenomenon you describe is because so many non-MACs give no indication that they understand MAC principles or concepts. Or maybe they do understand them and can come up with no credible way to attack or discredit them other than rewriting them or building a straw man of some Republican as evidence MAC is a bad thing. I can't be sure, but my suspicion is that they are terrified to concede that MAC is something different the dictionary definition of 'conservative' or something different from 'Republican'. It's just like the minor skirmish I had with Thomas this week re "welfare' being something quite different than the Founders' intent re the 'general welfare'. Unless the definition of the 'general welfare' is reframed, it becomes much more difficult to justify 'welfare' as a prerogative of the Federal government.

Quote:
I find as I mosey on towards old age that the theory of MAC principles espoused by the founders is not unlike the theory of evolution: with time its truth becomes ever more obvious, the evidence mounts increasingly, and for those with open minds, ever more relative and important to the American way of life. Perhaps MAC principles are too harsh, too reminiscent of how hard life can actually be. Scratching out an existence can be, well, existentialistic. Just ask all those people in foreign countries that would give much (and have) to come here...just for the opportunity to do better for themselves and their kin. We are blessed, perhaps by God, but, I think even the founding fathers would assign much credit to their concept of meritocracy combined with democracy tempered with a law of the land that demands equality with a pinch of empathy.

JM


Yes. On the 'empathy' part, I think MACs were 100% in favor of Affirmative Action immediately after segregation was ended. It was necessary to break down the cultural barriers that did unfairly and unethically deprive opportunity to certain minorities. But, once most barriers came down, once it was obvious that the American psyche no longer culturally separated black and white as it once did, MACs saw that Affirmative Action became a destructive thing that not only gave some a sense of entitlement but robbed the very people it was intended to help of the dignity and recognition of honest acheivement they deserved. And it became a tool to foster, nurture, and stimulate opportunistic patronage and racism.

So I think ethics and justice are MAC concepts more than 'empathy' or even 'compassion' here. Policy based on empathy or compassion has too much potential for corruption and/or unintended negative consequences. Policy based on protecting the unalienable rights of the people will rarely be found in a negative light.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.18 seconds on 01/10/2025 at 08:28:09