Repudiating Republicanism...

kuvasz,

Are you opposed to or in favor of the random drug testing done by the private sector?

Quote:

Such should not be allowed. A commencement exercise should never be allowed to be a political event.

Again with the restrictive, fascist governmental ideas.

Who should restrict something like a public gathering? Who makes the decision about what speech is free, and what is 'not allowed?'

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

Such should not be allowed. A commencement exercise should never be allowed to be a political event.

Again with the restrictive, fascist governmental ideas.

Who should restrict something like a public gathering? Who makes the decision about what speech is free, and what is 'not allowed?'

Cycloptichorn

Come on, cylcops, you surely have more sense than that. Freedom of expression does not include pushing your political statements at my commencement exercise. You see, if I am graduating, you have no right to ruin the ceremony to suit your own arrogant political grandstanding. After the ceremony, you are free to go parade down main street if you want to, to make a fool of yourself, if you do not obstruct me if I happen to be going down the same street. Freedom of expression should not include the disruption of a ceremony that deserves to be respectful. If you do not wish to be respectful, then you don't need to participate.

As I said, inconsiderate clods have no right to push their political statements down my throat at my graduation exercise. You have rights and privileges mixed up.

Fascists government ideas? What a joke. You apparantly have no idea what fascism is, if you think requiring a standard of decency and respect at a graduation ceremony is fascist. Good grief. I have never heard of such utter and complete nonsense.

Yes, freedom of expression does 'include pushing your political statements at my commencement exercise.'

Cycloptichorn

Some teachers and other officials participated in the jeering and heckling, so it is disingenuous to characterize the disturbance as just a bunch of radical discontents.

mysteryman wrote:

kuvasz,

Are you opposed to or in favor of the random drug testing done by the private sector?

No, only for cases of "probable cause."

If it required an examination under the sophisticated scrutiny of a gas chromatographic - mass spectrophotometer to ascertain that someone took illegal (or legal) drugs, would that not likely mean the person was not being affected in a way to adversely affect their job performance.

That is the point, job performance, isn't it?

Frankly, using IQ tests to screen potential employees would be better.

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

... is what the American public has done. The last election was the largest one-sided victory in US Congressional history, as not a single Dem lost a seat to a Republican. That enough should provide evidence that there has been a sea change in opinion in this country.

Cycloptichorn

For those people that form their opinions based on what everybody else thinks, then I guess your analysis should matter.

When the topic under discussion is 'what people think,' then yes, opinions and analysis about what people think based upon reporting that they do think a certain way do matter. I'm not sure why you seem to think they wouldn't matter, given the topic.

Quote:

If the country wants to go down the tube, I can't help it, cyclops. I don't see the trends to be very encouraging from a conservative viewpoint, but then again, you never know when society will be jarred to reality again by some event or events and see the light.

True on all counts, though I think that the prediction that the country is 'going down the tubes' is a little rash, don't you?

Quote:

I think the pendulum does swing back and forth, but what I see is a pendulum that swings more to the left, and then not so far back to the middle or right. Every time it swings left, it goes a bit further. It is getting out of balance, to the point that what used to be viewed as in the middle is being called right wing whacko now by leftists.

Strangely enough, when you compare highly Conservative America to the rest of the world, there is no left. Only a very disjointed and partisan viewpoint wouldn't recognize the fact that our political spectrum here in America is heavily tilted to the right.

Don't believe me, ask our foreign A2K members. They'll tell ya.

Quote:

Leftists would like to take us all the way to a socialist or communist society where the government takes care of everybody and everything,

Wrong

Quote:

where nobody has any personal responsibility

Double Wrong - and funny to hear a Republican talk about personal responsibility. Your party is the party of 'its' someone else's fault that all these things have gone wrong on our watch!'

Quote:

and I guess they assume it would be totally permissive in terms of lifestyle.

This is correct. There's a basic rule which guides my vision of Liberalism, and that's this:

"Who is hurt by an action, and in what specific ways?"

If you can't show this clearly, it should be legal. Period. With Gay Marriage, for example, noone can show who is hurt or in what ways they would be hurt; so it should be legalized. Simple stuff, really

Quote:

But a government big enough and powerful enough to take care of everybody is also a government big enough and powerful enough to tell everybody what to do 24 hours a day, and bank on it, it will. Leftists are driven by a craving for power and some mystical need to right every wrong. Government is their religion. Is that really what you want, cyclops?

Government by definition exists to protect the weak from the strong. You need to research a little history.

You seem to be caught up in the idea that the Left wants a totalitarian, centralized government. You couldn't be more wrong. You have described the basic elements of a Fascist government, which is an ultra-right wing creature.

And hey, I only report the trends - I don't make em! If you want to see these trends stop, I would suggest you stop supporting those who are pushing the country in this direction, and you know as well as I that it's the Republican's incompetence and foolishness over the last decade that has done this.

Cheers

Cycloptichorn

You have fallen prey to the idea that government can level the playing field and make everyone have equal outcomes by "protecting the weak from the strong." Attempts to right those wrongs have proven to be utter and absolute failures in history. Again, reality trumps idealism in the real world. It would be better to simply face certain principles of reality, which is provide a playing field of freedom and personal responsibility. Equal opportunity is what this country is about, but equal outcomes are not what this country has ever been about.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Yes, freedom of expression does 'include pushing your political statements at my commencement exercise.'

Cycloptichorn

No, it should not. Most definitely not. Protesting must be done in proper venues that do not violate everyone else's right to a decent and orderly ceremony. The commencement ceremony is not yours. It belongs to the university. There should be restrictions, dress codes and a respect for the program so as not to disrupt the program. There are many public gatherings you can be rightfully kicked out of if you are disruptive. You have a right to protest and express your opinion, but you have no particular right to disrupt or violate a code of decency and behavior at programs and ceremonies.

There has been a trend of schools and universities allowing students to make some kind of outlandish statement of dress, usually underneath the gown, or doing backflips off the stage, or whatever, but in my opinion such is getting a bit out of hand. Such behavior is crass and disrespectful if taken too far. A little in good taste can be humorous and even uplifting, but in my opinion the schools should try to present a ceremony that is respectful and appropriate for the achievements that have been attained for all students and their families. Political grandstanding at such ceremonies are not appropriate and should not be allowed. If you call this attitude fascist, I think you have lost your marbles, cyclops.

I am just reminding you that what people think has no bearing on what the correct thinking is.

Quote:

I am just reminding you that what people think has no bearing on what the correct thinking is.

Ah, the correct thinking.

Cycloptichorn

Reposting, as Okie seems to have decided to ignore my previous response.

okie wrote:

You have fallen prey to the idea that government can level the playing field and make everyone have equal outcomes by "protecting the weak from the strong." Attempts to right those wrongs have proven to be utter and absolute failures in history. Again, reality trumps idealism in the real world. It would be better to simply face certain principles of reality, which is provide a playing field of freedom and personal responsibility. Equal opportunity is what this country is about, but equal outcomes are not what this country has ever been about.

Wherever did anybody but you produce the idea of equal outcomes?

As to protecting the weak from the strong being an utter failure.... Slavery has been abolished; minorities have the right to vote; women have the right to vote; the Muslims, Jews, Mormons, and even the Wiccans have the right to worship; the handicapped can get out and about; I can safely walk unarmed down my street without worrying about local warlords; monopolies are prevented from controlling all commerce.

Do you listen to yourself before you start spouting nonsense? A little reflection prior to posting your words would save you a world of humiliation.

With all due respect, I see the biggest threat of fascism or totalitarianism residing in the left, cyclops.

The left is the side that advocates sacrificing the rights of individuals for the sake of groups. Very dangerous.

okie wrote:

kuvasz wrote:

Um, so the private sector whose corporate drug tests, now even for nicotine and dna screening, aren't akin to the monolith of public sector oversight in private behavior affairs.

You don't have to work if you don't want to, kuvasz. Sit at home and starve if you feel like it, so you don't have to take one of those despised drug tests.

Well, if you want to know, I own my business, but you really didn't respond to the remark, now did you? How is "Big" government interference in personal lives more obtrusive than a private sector employer demanding someone urinate on demand to show that their after hours behavoir conforms to some arbitrary corporate standard? Or a company saying that in order to reduce health costs no employee can smoke (even off the job-site) or be more than 20 pounds overweight or you're fired?... Because those things have already happened in your idealized "non-socialistic" American society.

kuvasz wrote:

Is it lost on you that one of the criticisms to the "socialism" you decry, e.g., "where nobody has any personal responsibility is diametrically opposite another you propose, fearing "socialism" because its "powerful enough to tell everybody what to do 24 hours a day, and bank on it, it will[/b][/i]

.

So, would you mind explaining how it could be "permissive" at the same time it tells everybody what to do?

okie wrote:

Leftists envision a permissive society, because they simply cannot stand the old fashioned idea of personal morality, but they do not realize the alternative will end up worse.

The "permissive" morality of caring for those least amongst us and promoting social justice actually would be the command of Jesus of Nazareth, not Marx and Engels of Germany, so come again on the "immorality" of leftists. If your problem is between you and the Teachings of Jesus, don't take it out on the Marxists.

btw: You failed once more to answer my question, so I'll ask it again, "how leftists could promote "permissiveness" at the same time the government they want to institute tells everybody what to do?

Are you equating having a teacher hold straight students in reprobation for beating up a homosexual classmate, just because he's "queer," with having the teacher demand that the all students engage in homosexual behavior?

okie wrote:

That helps explain why Bill Clinton is idolized by so many of that ilk.

Nope, not this one, try another example. Martin Luther King or Bobbie Kennedy perhaps, those would be "liberals" I might consider idolizing, but Bill Clinton?

Let's see, the two largest parts of the liberal line up are Labor and the poor? Right. So, Clinton signed NAFTA and CAFTA and screwed the workers in the US, then Clinton signed the Welfare Reform Act that screwed the poor. So either this guy ain't much of a liberal or what? So why are you caling him one?

okie wrote:

In their mind, he is their model of pleasing oneself and getting away with it, to heck with societal constraints. and Even though he was accused of rape by more than one, so-called womens groups loved him too, because they also sympathize with that mindset.

Again, nope, you're just making that up and would mean that "they" have a "mindset" to do what? Ignore rapists, because they're out there simply doing their thing? Surely, you can't be that stupid.

okie wrote:

Leftists are engaged in rejecting age old norms of behavior, but what they do not understand is that those norms are really what have enabled our culture to thrive.

Oh really? Change "Leftists for "Abolitionists" and that remark sounds an awful like that of the Cornerstone Speech of Alexander H. Stephens in 1861.

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?documentprint=76

Quote:

btw: so you don't have to google him, Stephens was the Vice President of the Confederate States of America.

Slavery was also an age-old norm of behavior that enabled the Confederacy to thrive too, so do you want to reinstitute slavery because it was okay in the Bible and the South sang?

So describe how slavery is different than those other "age old norms of behavior" you boast about defending.

okie wrote:

They do not understand that standards of human behavior must happen, and if not voluntary, they end up being forced upon them at some point down the road. Freedom without personal responsibility is doomed to fail.

So, you insist on others conforming to your own standards of "personal responsibility," and using the force of government to do so? Why, that is EXACTLY what you claim to fear in your opponent.

Apparently, in your eyes homosexuals aren't responsible citizens and you'd use the government to "de-homofy them? How, electro-shock treatment or maybe just an unobtrusive pink triangle that they had to wear?

okie wrote:

Leftists are driven by a craving for power and some mystical need to right every wrong. Government is their religion.

Quote:

No, government protects the weak from the strong......Is that really what you want, Yes. cyclops?

okie wrote:

You have fallen prey to the idea that government can level the playing field and make everyone have equal outcomes by "protecting the weak from the strong."

No, I haven't. Nothing I have mentioned, nor any reputable leftist promises any person's "outcomes," but goals towards establishing that government works towards the day when all citizens have equality of opportunity and towards equal justice for its citizens.

Its a pretty simple idea and dare say a product of a quite "American" optimism and sensibility; the best way to establish justice and promote the general Welfare is for each of us to be provided the social tools to be the best possible citizen we can be, and in so "pursuing one's happiness" the aggregate value and happiness of society is increased in the most efficient manner.

okie wrote:

Attempts to right those wrongs have proven to be utter and absolute failures in history. Again, reality trumps idealism in the real world. It would be better to simply face certain principles of reality, which is provide a playing field of freedom and personal responsibility. Equal opportunity is what this country is about, but equal outcomes are not what this country has ever been about.

How in the world could a 21st century American say such non-sense?

Have attempts to right the wrongs of 240 years of slavery and a century more of citizen disenfranchisement been failures to the black man and woman in America?

Or the wrong of addressing 150 years of female disenfranchisment been a failure since the passage of the 19th Amendment giving women the right to vote in the US?

So just what "attempts to right those wrongs have proven to be utter and absolute failures in history?"

okie wrote:

P.S. kuvasz, would you please learn how to use the quote boxes.

Yes, indeed, and perhaps would you please start learning your American history?

Quote:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

That is the Preamble of the Constitution of the United States of America, verably the mission statement on why we formed the government of United States of America; it was designed and defined to establish justice and promote the general welfare of its citizens.

Quote:

"What is government itself but the greatest of reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: You must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place, oblige it to control itself."

- James Madison, The Federalist # 51......the guy who wrote affectively the Constitution of the United States.

Quote:

Classical political thought says that the purpose of government is to do justice for its citizens. Part of this obligation is to foster conditions in which wealth is produced. The obligation is not met by substituting the wealth-producer for the government.

The normal and proper aim of the corporate community is to make money for its managers and for the owners of business all the better if its members also contribute to the general prosperity. However, business acts on the prevailing business philosophy, which claims that corporate self-interest eventually produces the general interest. This comfortable belief rests on misinterpretation of the theory of market rationality proposed by Adam Smith.

He would have found the market primitivism of the current day unrecognizable. He saw the necessity for public intervention to create or sustain the public interest, and took for granted the existence of a government responsible to the community as a whole, providing the structure within which the economy functions.

Business looks after the interests of businessmen and corporation stockholders. Stark and selfish self-interest obviously is not what motivates most American businessmen and -women, but it is the doctrine of the contemporary corporation and of the modern American business school. It does not automatically serve the general interest, as any 18th century rationalist would acknowledge - or any 21st century realist.

William Pfaff.

America's most enduring myth is that we are a classless society. With ambition, determination, intelligence and a bit of luck anyone can become rich. While it can occur, and it does often at times, for the overwhelming majority, it is not so.

When it does happen, the success is held up as an example of the system working and silence discussion of class warfare in America. The reality is that almost none of us are going to become rich or even moderately so. Even earning a solid middle-class income (having a job that pays $30,000-$40,000 a year) - is now beyond the reach of many Americans.

The corruption of the very language has been effective in casting the debate to the side of those with the power and money, viz.; ``free market'' no longer means a fair market, but an economy with little or no government protection against the most rapacious and powerful.

"Greed,'' is now an essential virtue in business. "Fairness,'' the cornerstone of a civilized society, is now considered a liberal vice.

Under this new worldview, "government'' is evil and communistic, 'taxation punishes success,'' welfare "fosters dependency'' and affirmative action is "reverse discrimination.''

If you believe that workers should receive a fair day's wages for a fair day's labor or that those with the ability to pay should pay their fair share in taxes or that social welfare programs be administered without moral judgment, and you get accused of waging class warfare.

The mainstream media does not mention this, as it is an extension of the corporate power structure. These are businesses owned and controlled by huge, multinational corporations. You only hear about class warfare when it is waged from the bottom-up. The top-down war being waged against average Americans is supported as the triumph of free enterprise.

Our nation has the most unequal distribution of wealth of any industrialized country in the world, with the top one percent owning over 40 percent of America's total wealth.

Some people believe government is a burden, unless they are investors in a failed bank or savings and loan, work for a defense contractor, or get generous tax breaks and/or subsidies for their business. This is considered beneficial government spending. Using their tax dollars for Social Security and Medicare for the elderly or welfare and Medicaid for the poor is considered wasteful and unnecessary government spending.

To the contented class, the wealthy are hard-working people blessed by God that are deserving of their good fortune. The poor are lazy, shiftless, and dependent upon handouts and contribute nothing to society. Money given to the wealthy creates jobs. Money provided to the poor saps their moral fiber.

I have seen all too many on the progressive Left pilloried for discussing the role of a democratic state in promoting efficiency and justice in a world that is full of modern technology. The claim of the Right of interpreting all state action, "government" as "interference," is intellectually fraudulent, and as repugnant is their sneering use of the term "government" that does not recognize differences between the popular will of the people via democracy and other less legitimate forms of government.

Refusing to see the distinction or blatantly denying it renders democracy null and void and legitimizes a mindset that rejects social contracts between people for the common benefit. What surely follows is the law of the jungle. And I can only assume that is the plan of most of the more rabid Right-wingers who believe that they are the strong and will rule the jungle. It is not in any sense a political philosophy, rather one of a method of achieving power.

kuvasz wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

kuvasz,

Are you opposed to or in favor of the random drug testing done by the private sector?

No, only for cases of "probable cause."

If it required an examination under the sophisticated scrutiny of a gas chromatographic - mass spectrophotometer to ascertain that someone took illegal (or legal) drugs, would that not likely mean the person was not being affected in a way to adversely affect their job performance.

That is the point, job performance, isn't it?

Frankly, using IQ tests to screen potential employees would be better.

I am required to undergo random drug tests because I drive a truck for a living.
My vehicle can weigh 80,000 lbs loaded.
Do you want me or other drivers driving stoned or high or drunk?

Let me explain something to you because you don't appear to be too cautious with your words. First, you asked:

Quote:

Are you opposed to or in favor of the random drug testing done by the private sector?

then you made the wild leap implying that if you are not subjected to random drug tests likely you and others would drink alcohol or smoke psychoactive drugs while driving.

There are two problems with what you are stating: one, a positive drug test means only that the person ingested the drug, and likely never drank or smoked pot while driving (or on the job), and second did it only in their home, with no affect on their ability to perform their job.

Especially if they are hauling hazardous material, like poison or radioactive or explosives?
I dont.
"Probable Cause" can be to late for the family killed by a driver that is high on drugs.
So, we do the random tests.

Good for you, and as a result you ought to run on over to Frankfort and demand from the Kenkucky State Legislature to reduce the drunk driving alcohol limit to 0.4%, the driving age to 21, and the speed limit to 45mph because that would make the roads safer for all of us.

Right? You want safer roads, and each of these makes them a lot safer than drug testing the pizza delivery boy to see if he was rocking the ganga the night before in his dorm room.

As a volunteer firefighter,I am also subject to random tesats.
I am not a city employee,or a county employee,but since we are responsible for other peoples lives,we undergo random tests.
To be honest,I dont know if thats a state requirement or just my dept.

People who can cause death or serious injury to others because they hold a position of responsibility (firefighters,cops,doctors,nurses,truckdriver,ship captains,airline pilots for example) are all subject to random testing,and most of us wouldnt have it any other way.

That "responsibility" can be stretched to include criteria that would include everyone from the guy who cleans the toilets at Micky D's to the guy who makes their greasy fries.

So my position is that unless a person's behavior affects their job performance then there is no reason to drug test.

But you want to restrict a person's behavior even if it has no affect on their job performance.

So even though you know that other legal codifications would do better to achieve your goal of "safer roads," you would prefer to focus on restrictions that are relatively meaningless towards achieving truly safer roads.

And you call yourself a Conservative?

Frankly, you're not.

You are an Authoritarian.