No, Conservatism Isn’t Like Nazism. (Sigh…)
3. Conservatism was the ideology of Nazis.
False. This statement says more about those who are doing the comparison than about those being likened to Nazis. Anyone, on either side of politics, calling someone a Nazi has no depth of compassion whatsoever for the horrors perpetrated on Jews and everyone else caught in the wake of genocide.
Conservatives do not hold people down, and they certainly have no plans of wiping an entire race from existence. Accusations like this show a lack of character and an inability to comprehend the depths of human suffering.
What about conservative “fascists?” Funny you bring that up.
Well, conservatives have been called that too. The term “fascist” is as slippery to pin down as an oyster on a plate of butter, but I’ll try. The only country to actually claim that it was fascist was Italy under Benito Mussolini.
Leftists like to say that since Mussolini said, “Socialism, as a doctrine, is already dead,” that he must be from … the right wing! Nope. He took over corporations, businesses, banks, public works, and consolidated land under government control. Now, I could be wrong, but that sounds a lot like socialism/communism to me.
The aspect of socialism that Mussolini actually disliked was class warfare. So that makes him definitely not a Marxist … but still a socialist.
In fact, Mussolini really admired U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt. According to Jonah Goldberg, in the book Liberal Fascism, Mussolini reviewed FDR’s book Looking Forward and said:
“This guy is one of us. … The appeal to the decisiveness and masculine sobriety of the nation’s youth, with which Roosevelt here calls his readers to battle, is reminiscent of the ways and means by which Fascism awakened the Italian people.” Mussolini wrote that FDR understood that the economy could not “be left to its own devices” and saw the fascistic nature of how the American president put this understanding into practice. “Without question, the mood accompanying this sea change resembles that of Fascism.”
As I recall, FDR is the darling of left-wingers and the Democrat Party in general. To be fair, Roosevelt was really an early Progressive as was the Republican president, Woodrow Wilson. Back then, it was just flat-out cool to believe in a “third way.”
4. Conservatives are fanatical Christians who want to use the government to proselytize.
False. There are Christian conservatives and Christian socialists. The difference is how they choose to fulfill their mandate for charity. Christian conservatives choose to be “cheerful givers” (2 Corinthians 9:7) of their own accord, and Christian socialists want to give government the responsibility to take care of the needy by decree. So apparently this beef is more with socialist Christians than with conservatives.
Conservatives in general have an appreciation for the historical significance of our Judeo-Christian founding and system of laws. They do not feel the need for revisionist history to erase the facts of religion in American government to support a misunderstood concept of separation of church and state.
John Adams once said, “Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.” Conservatives simply agree.
I hope this clears up any misunderstandings about American conservatives. I’m sure liberals don’t mean to disparage them in any way.
Andie Brownlow,
Thank you for your heartfelt article and welcome to PJM.
Don’t get discouraged by the trolls who will tear your article and conservative commenters here apart. It’s par for the course but, there are a lot of good people who will appreciate your words.
I’d write more on this subject but I’m tuckered out so I’ll bid you adieu and hope to hear more from you!
Nice article.
NOTE: Woodrow Wilson (first and only President to welcome a KKK rally in Washington) was a Democrat, not a Republican.
“Conservatives only want the rich to succeed.”
Free market conservatives do not believe in zero sum economics. The rich can only get truly wealthy if the economic pie gets bigger for everyone. Bill Gates, for instance, got extremely wealthy only after the masses were able to purchase relatively inexpensive computers. He would have achieved only somewhat moderate success if his sales were limited to the very well to do.
Stay tuned for the trolls. They will try to tell you that the National SOCIALISTS were small government conservatives.
I’m a conservative refuge who will never return to MA.
Maybe they need to read “Liberal Facism” by Goldberg. After reading it, I read 8 other books on facism and the American Progressive movement just to get the zeitgeist of the era and to fact check. For the most part he was right on, facism is a leftist ideology, a midwaypoint between full blown communism and capitalism (hence, it was labeled “right” by communists and detested because it nationalized an international idea”). Technically, it is National Socialism isn’t it? An interesting read is “Three new deals: Reflection on Roosevelt’s America, Mussolini’s Italy, and Hitler’s Germany.” by Schivelbusch.
It is easy and sobering track parallels with national socialism and current policies and actions. Add that to what appears to be an adminestration’s affection for Wilson’s view of the constitution and bill of rights and you have reason for alarm and fear.
The American form of government.
http://www.wimp.com/thegovernment/
I can’t believe people are so gullible as to believe National SOCIALISTS were on the political “right”. It only goes to prove that some people will believe anything. Government with TOTAL control is from the left (i.e. fascism, communism, socialism), government with little control is from the right.
That was great until you got to the point of religion. Thanks for addressing that not all conservatives are christian fanatics who proselytize. Then you fail buy not pointing out that many are of all faith and many are of no faith at all. It is this smug assumption that turns off many non-christian conservatives. Your quote of Adams is also repulsive to non-believers. The constitution is for Americans not just those with a god. And as a conservative I wholly do not agree with it and I know many others who do not either. Before you “clear up misunderstandings of conservatives” to liberals maybe you should make sure you aren’t doing it with your own glaring misunderstandings.
As for the claim that this country is founded on a Judeo-Christian base, what exactly is Judeo-Christian about it? These things would have to Judeo-Christian only and not shared by any other type of person. Not all of the Founders were Judeo-Christian by the way. Just because a christian creates something does not mean that creation is christian. The christian cook who made my pancakes at the waffle house made pancakes not chrstian pancakes base on Judeo-Christianness.
Good article, but the Woodrow Wilson mistake took some shine off it. How could you make that mistake?
“2. Conservatives hate minorities.”
Wait a minute . . . conservatives have a reputation for being racists? Where have I heard that before?
‘A swastika was carved on a golf course in Lakeville, Massachusetts, this month with the message, “I (swastika) Obama.” I guess that’s supposed to be the work of some evil, racist, right-winger. (Yawn.)’
1. Delia: “Andie Brownlow, Thank you for your heartfelt article and welcome to PJM.”
Yes, Andie, you seem to fit right in.
“Don’t get discouraged by the trolls….”
No. Take heart from the A-holes!
4. Old Soldier: “They will try to tell you that the National SOCIALISTS were small government conservatives.”
National SOCIALISTS!!! Omigod! That’s never been noticed before!
5. Jaimie: “Maybe they need to read “Liberal Facism” by Goldberg. After reading it, I read 8 other books on facism….”
Read that 9th book, Jaimie, and maybe you’ll learn how to spell it.
This site is funnier than The Onion!
Nazism, defined as the National Socialistic German Worker’s Party is as stated in their title, a socialist, leftist ideal. There is nothing conservative about centralized federal control over industry, art and thought. (Sounds like liberalism to me).
gotta critique this one. its not that anything you said was wrong, but if i believed the worst about conservatives, this wouldn’t sway me very much.
Wow, n&t and biblio really contributed to the debate on this article. Of course n&t hasn’t gotten his talking points and quotes from CAP/MM yet so he is constrained to posting jibberish; and biblio is doing his usual fifth-grade imitation of debate. n&t you are a vile person for your comments regarding Beck’s child, but that is expected of a tool from the left-everything goes as long as its about conservatives. You both are fools and tools!
Last week I was ribbing my Progressive officemate by asking him why the left runs away from placing the Nazis in their camp. After all, Nazi Germany was actually quite egalitarian; by the summer of 1939 they had achieved a living standard never equaled by USSR; they had an excellent universal healthcare system; and they supported the Palestinians. Sure he murdered 6 million Jews and 10 million people total but Stalin murdered 5 times that many included 6-10 million Ukrainians during forced collectivization. Mao, the darling of Anita Dunn, is responsible for 50-70 million more murders. All he did was get angry and walk out in a huff over the comparison. Progressives should at least embrace Mussolini, Franco and Salazar. It would give them some examples of tolerable, fairly prosperous collectivist societies.
I wait for the trolls (and Charles Johnson) to jump in with pointed fingers say “ah ha, see conservatives are Nazis.”
First things first, you people aren’t conservatives. Conservatives could think for themselves, they were critical thinkers, they read the newspaper. They’re long gone now, replaced by authoritarian popsicle-sucking power-worshipers with nary an original thought in their head nor unemotionaly-derived perspective from which to draw from. And then you’re going to complain about being called Nazis? Really? My god, the most salient standard of your movement is a complete lack of integrity.
National SOCIALISTS!!! Omigod! That’s never been noticed before!
I chalk it up to the triumph of hope over experience that you (and the Left more broadly) will finally get it and own up to your ideology’s role in Nazism. Maybe if you get the time, read “Mein Kampf”, especially the passages where Hitler talks about seeing Marxists marching in the streets of Vienna and becoming inspired to build a movement of a similar sort.
Of course, we all know you prefer self-delusion over self-assessment.
Unfortunately we are fighting 40 years of misinformation and ignorance regarding conservatives and Nazis. They are ideologically opposites. But somehow the left has managed to dominate media and the opinion makers who claim they are one and the same. Now conservatives are also considered racists any black conservative is an Uncle Tom.
In reality it is just the opposite. The Uncle Toms are those blacks who validate the racist views of the far left. They perpetuate the belief that blacks cannot take care of themselves and need big government to give them a leg up. While all the time most are kept trapped in the poverty treadmill managed by the real Uncle Toms. They send their kids to horrible schools that are little more than holding tanks for future felons. They hate the idea of school vouchers which would loosen their grip on the kids. They institute social service programs designed to emasculate the men. No wonder they join gangs to gain some kind of identity for themselves.
I watched O’Reilly the night one black professor from Florida claimed that all the people at the 9-12 march on Washington were racist Obama haters. He was allowed to get away with that comment. I was there and most of the signs were anti-government and very cleaver. I also listened to speeches by black men and women who attended the rally. These people will never appear on television and that includes Fox news. Had O’Reilly paid any attention to the event, which he tried to marginalize, he would have know that. But O’Reilly the “conservative” claimed there were only 75,000 people at the event.
The misinformation is coming from all sides and I wish people would wake up the fact that Fox is a phony conservative news network. Geraldo Rivera, Mike Wallace, Sheppard Smith, Greta, etc,etc, are all CNN retreads. Hannity and Beck are the only two legitimate conservatives on that network. As for Fox and Friends the program is unwatchable. The three hosts are interchangeable. The best you can say about them is they are not unlikeable, but hardly the big guns to defend conservatism or challange the far left.
.10. biblio44:
9. Now and Then:
Hi guys, just here to remind you that your messiah got his start in politics turning tricks for a slumlord. Yes, he stepped up to the mic, he used his great oratorial skills, and he serviced that slumlord. Yes, he got his knees dirty.
And every day in every way, that image will burn into your mind and you will pullout your hair screaming NO! Say it aint so!
And I will be there every day to desecrate your messiah, and piss on your dream.
–the Artist Formerly Known as Billslayer
RE #9/Now and Then: [...] Wait a minute [..] conservatives have a reputation for being racists? Where have I heard that before? [...]
Mon pauvre N&T, you heard that from liberals who, for the past forty years have had a complete monopoly on the public description of reality in this country – i.e. building an entire Potemkiniade of virtues about themselves, and constantly depicting anything but their putative qualities as infamous or repugnant.
A good royal water test for this is to go in any school and:
1) ask children what political party Abraham Lincoln was in – and you will hear and uniform: “Democrat” -
2) then ask the children what was the formal political aggregation in the Confederate states before and during the Civil War – and the uniform answer will be: “Republican”
QED – (expression a liberal blockhead like you immediately identifies as Mayan) -
they read the newspaper
If you don’t read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed.
-Mark Twain
15. Moho:authoritarian popsicle-sucking power-worshipers?
Are you serious?
You have a MESSIAH for christs sake!
A POLITICAL MESSIAH!
Jesus Christ you are an IDIOT!
Have you failed to notice all the HOPE posters?
Have you ever in you life on one occasion seen ANYTHING written (outside of third world dictatorships) like “Barack Obama: Son of Promise, Child of Hope?”
You are an IDIOT!
I happen to agree with this article for the most part. You have the prejuidiced type and those that are not. However, you could say that about liberals as well. I think it is the independant conservatives; the Nixon-Powell intellectual types that have dwindled over the years. Now, they all think the same and say the same things, they just repeat what they are told to repeat… rather scary. They used to be called ditto heads etc years ago, akin to Delia, the low end of the spectrum now rules the roost. Can these types win on a national scale though? Most, do not think so.
gotta critique this one. its not that anything you said was wrong, but if i believed the worst about conservatives, this wouldn’t sway me very much.
I have come to the conclusion that, for both sides of the political spectrum, there is nothing short of God Himself coming down to Earth to declare the other side wrong that will change anyone’s mind. This is why the only fundamental solution to the political strife is to split the country into two OR to practice true federalism.
Everything else is a band-aid on top of a shotgun wound to the head and is a waste of everyone’s time and energy. The only political debates I want to have is whether a center-right solution or a far-right solution is the best one for a particular problem. Center-left and far-left solutions hold ZERO interest to me because they are always worse than the problem.
I am well aware that the trolls feel the complete opposite and I’m fine with that because I don’t care about their opinions at all.
10. biblio44: Thanks for pointing out my typing error…there are probably others since today I’m using a laptop…not my favorite. If having one spelling error nixes the points I bring up or makes me some kind of idiot, What does calling Austrian a language, stating that we have 56 states, or other gaffes (becoming numerous) by Obama say about him and his positions?
Poor Citizen:
Richard Nixon was not a conservative. He was an Eastern Establishment Rockefeller Republican who expanded the Welfare state beyond that envisioned by LBJ, Affirmative Action was born on his watch, and he instituted the wage and price controls that led to gas lines and bankrupt farmers.
Nixon the “Conservative” is product of the liberal Democratic propaganda machine and has no bearing on the truth. I suggest you read [liberal] Tom Wicker’s biography of Nixon so that you will understand where Nixon belongs on the political scale.
Colin Powell is also from the Nixon wing of the Party.
It’s true. Conservatism isn’t like Nazism. But we don’t have a properly conservative party in the USA. We have the GOP…
On to the four elements:
1) Conservatives only want the rich to succeed.
Although the effect of conservatives’ low tax policies always is the same – increased concentration of wealth at the top end of the income scale – the notion of trickle down economics is still maintained as gospel among some conservatives. The unfortunate reality is that economic growth does benefit the wealthy disproportionately when tax rates are not sufficiently progressive, and has led to an erosion in purchasing power for the working poor.
Even more interesting, conservatives equate “success” with economic wealth. The value of public goods is minimized, in order to emphasize the role of business in the economy. Profit and growth become the only measures of success, and the negative effects of both can be ignored as irrelevant. Conservatives believe that free market capitalism achieves the best outcome for all individuals, despite copious evidence that this is not the case.
Conservatives misunderstand success as a personal condition of wealth, when in reality success means much more. Success involves healthy communities, public safety, education, and all the other aspects of a community. None of us can be a success in isolation. An exclusive focus on monetary wealth ignores the value of the environment, the community, the culture and the wider world.
It’s not that conservatives only want the rich to succeed – it is that they use wealth as the primary measure of success.
2) Conservatives hate minorities.
Hating minorities is not central to modern conservatism. Many conservatives are too accepting of racial bias, and opposition to affirmative action is wrongheaded, but that does not mean that conservatives in general hate minorities. The problem is that conservatives tolerate those who hate minorities, and do nothing to counteract their hate.
3) Conservatism was the ideology of Nazis.
Fascism, of course, was the ideology of the Nazis. Conservatism of course has nothing to do with fascism, but as I noted above, the GOP has little to do with conservatism. Conservatism would not permit the abandonment of habeas corpus, or the perpetration of warrantless wiretaps, or a war without express authorization. These are things that are associated with authoritarian regimes, among them the Nazis. Nothing conservative about it, though.
4) Conservatives are fanatical Christians who want to use the government to proselytize.
Conservatives are not fanatical Christians who want to use the government to proselytize. By the same token, fanatical Christians who want to use the government to proselytize are not conservatives, and have unfortunately taken over the GOP. A quick perusal of the party platform is all it takes to see that the fanatical Christians are driving the Republican bus – which may be why things look so apocalyptic for the party at the moment.
No true conservative would be caught opposing equal rights for homosexuals, or permitting the state to interfere in the doctor patient relationship. It is the fanatical Christian fringe that most endangers the GOP and the nation, by being unable to grasp the concept of secular government.
So no, conservatism isn’t like nazism – it has its own set of problems, and an even bigger problem in not having a party. The GOP is no longer compatible with conservatism – and it will be a herculean task to rebuild the party along those lines if that is indeed the path to GOP revival.
Peace.
DS
It is the fanatical Christian fringe that most endangers the GOP and the nation, by being unable to grasp the concept of secular government.
I disagree. I think that the evangelical movement within the GOP is using religious language to promote an essentially secular notion of what they consider the “good society”. While they do not speak the language of sociology, I don’t consider them theocrats, either. I do not self-identify with that group, but I don’t see them as a bigger danger than those who would tax us into servitude.
Even more interesting, conservatives equate “success” with economic wealth.
I live in the material world and I am a material girl. If you have some other notion of “success” feel free to use it in your own personal tabulation of your achievements and I will continue using mine. You can’t possibly fathom how uninterested I am in your notions of “success”. Take the thing you are most uninterested in and double that level of uninterestedness. Then multiply that by infinity and you’ve begun to scratch the surface.
Sadly, at this point we are dealing with blind hatred. Such is not subject to being swayed by opinion columns and any degree of consciousness raising. Blind hatred is just so much easier to adopt as a mind set, it requires no effort and it all fits on a bumper sticker.
Blotto:
“a vile person for your comments regarding Beck’s child”
What did I say about Beck’s child? Quote me.
Unfortunately we are fighting 40 years of misinformation and ignorance regarding conservatives and Nazis.
There was an encyclopedia of political history issued in the USSR that didn’t even allow the NAZI acronym to be expanded to its full German name, lest the readers see the word “socialism” in the name.
Little facts like that tell you a lot about people and their ideas of what is right and true.
National Socialism. What was that second part again?
If you prefer the full name, it was “Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei” — National Socialist German Worker’s Party.
The idea that it was a right-wing movement is inaccurate. It had elements of Marxism that no fiscal conservative would tolerate, and a disregard for religion that no social conservative would accept. It was also, of course, intensely statist.
It has much more in common with modern liberalism than it does with modern conservatism.
David S – your comments are unsubstantiated opinions.
First, low tax policies do not result in ‘only a wealthy class’. Low tax policies enable the middle class to start up small businesses, the key mainstay of a modern economy, and enable more of the population to have a middle class life. There is thus no erosion of purchasing power but the opposite.
With regard to the wealthy sector, this group functions as the major funding backbone of large industrial development, the operation of foundations, hospitals, educational reserch centres, etc.
Redistribution of wealth disables the economic function of both these sectors of the population.
Your view that ‘conservatives equate success with economic wealth’ is your personal opinion. No point in commenting.
However, your assertion that the value of’public goods’ should be increased is debatable.What do you mean by this and why should it be of greater value?
Yes, business is about profit and growth. What else should it be about? What negative effects? Oh, and please provide the ‘copious evidence’ against free market capitalism.
You are, again, isolate in your view that ‘conservatives view success as related to wealth’ (where do you get these ideas from???). A conservative is not separate from the community, as evidenced by the many conservative presidents and supreme court judges with a conservative view, who do not ‘measure success by wealth’ and who are indeed, morally responsible to the community.
As for your view that ‘conservatives tolerate those who hate minorities’, I’ll disagree. That’s the mode of the left – with their political and cultural relativism.
What abandonment of habeas corpus? It certainly hasn’t happened to citizens in the US!
What war without express authorization? The Iraq War, for example, was approved by Congress. The Afghan war as well, and it’s a NATO/UN war. So, what are you talking about?
Could you provide some evidence that ‘fanatical Christians have taken over the GOP? You repeat this several times. Could you substantiate this?
Could you provide some evidence that the GOP is unable to grasp ‘secular government’ (and you’ll need a definition of this term).
Oh and what is the empirical and logical evidence for your personal opinion that ‘no true conservative would oppose equal rights for homosexuals’? Could you provide some evidence or is this just your personal opinion?
You have come up with a highly personal set of attributes of ‘conservative’. I’m afraid I don’t recognize any of them as definitive descriptions of that perspective.
Of course other leftists have the Nazis, just as the Nazis hated the Bolsheviks. Nothing is bitterer than a family feud.
Try this on for size. Muslims, like rudderless revisionists who champion them in lands where Muslims comprise less than half the population, have a unidirectional approach to the rest of the world. That approach is 3 fold. One is conversion, another is dhimmitude, and the other is execution.
When one is not of the tribe, anything they have to say is less than equal.
So, both the Sons of Allah, and those who champion them, are unidirectional. For, woe unto them who seek to change them. For the reformers will not be allowed to succeed by the Sons of Allah, and by those who champion them, namely the rudderless revisionists.
Baal:
You have a MESSIAH for christs sake!
LOL…I do? Who is it, please tell me who it is, because I’ve been waiting all my life for a messiah…
Small problem: the symbol in question is not a swastika, but a sauwastika, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sauwastika
Besides that, the national-socialist swastika is always standing on edge, and is never placed straight.
It’s highly unlikely that any real national-socialist would get this symbol so badly wrong(and the entire message does not sound like it was written by a native English speaker either, since it does not make sense in either English or German), so it looks very much to me like ‘publicity for old rope’ (pun intended)
Ps.: Don’t be so lazy and take the 4 letter ‘nazi’ shortcut — curing the ensuing confusion of the ignorant with common sense is far more work than typing ‘national-socialist’ in the first place.
29. Now and Then:
“What did I say about Beck’s child? Quote me.”
From October 13, 2009 article written by Adam Graham that was titled, The GOP’s ‘Beck Problem’:
21. Now and Then:
“Beck can’t do anything right . . . can’t even make a baby right.”
Read it and weep, sfb.
@26. David S: – Conservatism isn’t like Nazism. But we don’t have a properly conservative party in the USA. We have the GOP…
Other than the “but”, this is an excellent observation. Conservatism is indeed the diametric opposite of national socialism. And there is presently no conservative (read: classical liberal) political party in the U.S. There hasn’t been one for at least two decades.
And you have your head stuck inside a wall or up your rear end if you think the GOP has been taken over by the religious right. Today’s GOP has lost the support of its conservative, erstwhile base – which comprises the ideological majority of Americans – because it sold out to the left long ago. So-called “compassionate conservatism” is nothing more than Socialism-Lite®, as demonstrated by the enormous growth of government and Medicare during the last 9 years. RINOs in the GOP are still actively supporting other leftist RINOs like Dede Scozzafava, who is anything but a member of the religious right.
Here’s the left’s program in a nutshell:
1. The State must be charged first with providing the opportunity for a lifelihood and way of life. (7)
2. Nationalization of industry (e.g., banking, automotive, health care, energy, etc.). (13)
3. Division of profits / profit sharing. (14)
4. Old age welfare (e.g., via Medicare, Social Security). (15)
5. Rhetorical emphasis on preservation of the ‘middle class’. (16)
6. A ‘living’ Constitution. (19)
7. The State is responsible for defining national education. (20)
8. Downsizing of the military and paramilitary services. (22)
9. Control of the press (e.g., suppression of dissenters like Fox News). (23)
10. Essentially unlimited power and authority given to the federal government. (25)
Numbers in parentheses are left as an exercise for the student.
21
I think Moho is being honest when he says Obama is not his Messiah. Obama isn’t Alinskyite enough for Moho’s tastes. Alinsky may or may not be Moho’s Messiah, but he’s probably closer than Obama.
@32. ETAB:
your comments are unsubstantiated opinions.
Let me substantiate them for you.
First, low tax policies do not result in ‘only a wealthy class’. Low tax policies enable the middle class to start up small businesses, the key mainstay of a modern economy, and enable more of the population to have a middle class life. There is thus no erosion of purchasing power but the opposite.
wealth is distributed much more unequally than income: the top 1% controls some 25 – 33% of total net worth and the top 10% holds 71%;” other estimates place these disparities much higher and widening as social inequalities increase, high-paying jobs disappear, the middle class keeps shrinking, poverty grows, and federal and state governments cut essential services in the face of increasing need among greater numbers of people.
“…while the bottom 99 percent of incomes grew at a solid pace of 2.7 percent per year from 1993-2000, these incomes grew only 1.3 percent per year from 2002-2007. As a result, in the economic expansion of 2002-2007, the top 1 percent captured two thirds of income growth.”
if one takes into account the inflation factor, the average family income has shrunk significantly over the past decade. The median household income fell by 3.6 percent between 2007 and 2008, reaching about $ 50,300 now. It is down from $52,163.
However, your assertion that the value of’public goods’ should be increased is debatable.What do you mean by this and why should it be of greater value?
Conservatives don’t seem to appreciate the value of public investment in education. Or anything else, save the military. There are solid economic reasons to make a public investment in improved education.
Yes, business is about profit and growth. What else should it be about? What negative effects? Oh, and please provide the ‘copious evidence’ against free market capitalism.
What else should it be about? How about maximizing human potential. Negative effects? How about poverty, disease, death and inequality. The evidence against free market capitalism is the current state of the world.
You are, again, isolate in your view that ‘conservatives view success as related to wealth’ (where do you get these ideas from???). A conservative is not separate from the community, as evidenced by the many conservative presidents and supreme court judges with a conservative view, who do not ‘measure success by wealth’ and who are indeed, morally responsible to the community.
Can you even identify a conservative president or supreme court judge? I certainly have not seen any lately.
As for your view that ‘conservatives tolerate those who hate minorities’, I’ll disagree. That’s the mode of the left – with their political and cultural relativism.
I look forward to your outrage at the hate directed against gays.
What abandonment of habeas corpus? It certainly hasn’t happened to citizens in the US!
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld.
What war without express authorization? The Iraq War, for example, was approved by Congress. The Afghan war as well, and it’s a NATO/UN war. So, what are you talking about?
The Iraq war was not expressly authorized by Congress, which never issued the required declaration of war (Article 1, Section
Could you provide some evidence that ‘fanatical Christians have taken over the GOP? You repeat this several times. Could you substantiate this?
White evangelical Protestants have become one of the most important parts of the Republican Party’s electoral base, making up over one-third of those who identify with the GOP and vote for its candidates. The party’s political fortunes depend, in large part, on retaining the solid support of the evangelical community. … Evangelicals remain the party’s most supportive group…
Could you provide some evidence that the GOP is unable to grasp ’secular government’ (and you’ll need a definition of this term).
I would point to the party platform.
Oh and what is the empirical and logical evidence for your personal opinion that ‘no true conservative would oppose equal rights for homosexuals’? Could you provide some evidence or is this just your personal opinion?
Conservatives support equality under the law as a bedrock principle. One cannot justify discrimination against homosexuals without betraying this conservative value. The state would not be granted such power by conservatives.
You have come up with a highly personal set of attributes of ‘conservative’. I’m afraid I don’t recognize any of them as definitive descriptions of that perspective.
Perhaps you would like to offer your own perspective, then, rather than merely following the example of the GOP as the party of “no”?
Peace.
DS
37. Delia:
Then you also know I was mirroring Beck’s own words about a co-worker’s wife who had a miscarriage.
Thanks for reminding us what kind of man he is. But you’re not interested in that, because he’s one of your own. Condemn it all or live with the hypocrisy.
What abandonment of habeas corpus? It certainly hasn’t happened to citizens in the US!
Jose Padilla. Look it up bozo. Just because he has a non-anglo name, doesn’t mean he’s not a citizen or that his citizenship is any less valid than yours.
Veni–> You’re an idiot if you take any of this seriously. How could I take you seriously, when you perceive any of this as anything more than derision-worthy comedy. Your accusation that I’m an Alinsky worshiper has no impact, you might as well call me a Nazi. You’re an ill-informed stooge.
41. Now and Then,
This is what you also wrote:
44. Now and Then:
A few years back, Beck was having a feud with his radio partner named Bruce. A couple days after Bruce’s wife, Terry, had a miscarriage, Beck called her live on the air and says, ‘We hear you had a miscarriage,’ ” remembers Brad Miller, a former Y95 DJ and Clear Channel programmer. “When Terry said, ‘Yes,’ Beck proceeded to joke about how Bruce apparently can’t do anything right — he can’t even have a baby.”
—
Hearsay? Show me tangible audio/visual proof.
Please, let’s not go over this again. Nothing you or any of us say is going to make a particle of difference. The people who make this charge are themselves, of course, totalitarians. The ones who hear it and don’t know what totalitarians are cannot be educated by anything said here or anywhere else.
Stop talking. Start doing. Shove back. Hard.
Don’t explain yourself or the rest of us. Pick up a stick, stand in the doorway, and tell these punks where to shove it. I’ve been doing this myself for years now and you’d be amazed at the results you get. Remember this about them: if they can’t do it by lawsuit or under cover of night, they won’t do it. They’re all cowards. We used to beat them up in the Sixites. Don’t you remember?
@42. Moho: – Jose Padilla. Look it up bozo.
Good idea. I did. Turns out Abdullah al-Muhajir was convicted. Of terrorism.
Looks like you’re the bozo.
al-Muhajir’s case and Hamdi’s are both excellent examples of the socially suicidal policy the left wants to pursue against terrorist warfare: treating it as a law enforcement problem.
This is exactly the broken mindset that led to 9/11 and, later, to the resurgent conflict in Iraq after Saddam’s military forces were defeated. The conflicted SCOTUS decision in the Hamdi case – clear evidence that the legal system is not suited to deciding military matters – exemplifies how completely broken this mindset is.
44. james,
True and I’m disappointed with politicians of all stripes and as much as I realize there is no perfect ‘party’ to represent how I feel, it’s still hard to not be let down.
Are there any ‘real’ people who are not elitists in politics any more or are we all just getting played for fools and pitted against each other while ‘they’ rifle through our ‘stuff’?
Here’s another fact. Some of us come here to read insightful essays by fine writers such as Victor Hanson, Michael Ledeen, Bill Whittle and other thoughtful conservatives. PJM has become a great source for these ideas and this information. Certain others are so obsessed with what we are reading and frightened that their Messiah maybe failing, that they come here to function as noise. I’m not sure that’s the reason they were born but if functioning as noise fills their lives with meaning, I suppose we should be happy they’ve found some sort of purpose in their sad, empty lives.
We used to beat them up in the Sixites.
This is a new crop. You can’t fight the enlightenment with mere fisticuffs.
Peace.
DS
Veni–> You’re an idiot if you take any of this seriously. How could I take you seriously, when you perceive any of this as anything more than derision-worthy comedy. Your accusation that I’m an Alinsky worshiper has no impact, you might as well call me a Nazi. You’re an ill-informed stooge.
Your accusation that I’m an idiot has no impact. You might as well call me an Alinsky worshiper.
I’m not quite sure what you mean by taking “this” seriously, but, in general, no, I don’t take accusations that conservatism is equivalent to Nazism seriously.
The things I take seriously, in terms of interacting with others (which is one of the main themes of politics), are microeconomics and game theory. I take a “minimax” view of government powers, because I think that government is basically a rent-seeking kleptocracy, so I want to “minimize” the “maximum” amount of theft it can accomplish.
What I don’t take seriously are any romanticized notions that the government can be “compassionate” or any of that other crap.
The section of Wyndham Lewis’ autobiography, “Rude Assignment”, dealing with politics, entitled “Advice to Inmates of the Power House” should be required reading to earn the right to comment on politics.
“It is a power house-we might call it that-in which we live. It is given up to the generating of power, the atmosphere is heavy with power. Men walk or strut about, frowning with importance, because they have access to power. Some are heavy with power, as a woman is with child. At the microphone some are almost dripping with power-their words are like bullets or drops of blood, so that the timorous shiver slightly, and the bravest feel none too comfortable.
Socially, life in the modern age is like being in an immense building, full of a radioactive something we call power. It is malignant, this kind of power, and we are all slightly cancered.
This disease we name power is most unfortunately, power over us. If we were not there, there would be none of this type of power at all: without any Germans, there could have been no Hitler. What is really terrifying is that it is all something derived from us-you and I. All these Somebodies would be nobodies if it were not for us…
Not a pleasant situation, of course. Not particularly comfortable. But what is the alternative? Where I spoke of Politics, in my first part, I made it perfectly clear, you may remember, that there is no escape from this Power House.”
Those are words I can take seriously.
@45. goy:
al-Muhajir’s case and Hamdi’s are both excellent examples of the socially suicidal policy the left wants to pursue against terrorist warfare: treating it as a law enforcement problem.
Our US Constitution includes the right to habeas corpus. It’s the most basic foundation of all legal rights. Yet you would have us believe that it is suddenly “socially suicidal” – a nonsense phrase meant to conjure fears without a basis in reality.
The truth is that law enforcement is the best way to address the problem of terrorism – open warfare only aids the terrorist recruiters.
This is exactly the broken mindset that led to 9/11 and, later, to the resurgent conflict in Iraq after Saddam’s military forces were defeated.
It was complacency by Bush & Co that led to 9/11 – while law enforcement officers pressed for action. Declaring war against Al Qaeda would not have prevented such an attack.
The insurgency in Iraq was an easily foreseen consequence of the power vacuum created by the poorly managed invasion. Defeating the Iraqi military was never a great obstacle – establishing law and order in their absence has, predictably, been a much greater challenge.
The conflicted SCOTUS decision in the Hamdi case – clear evidence that the legal system is not suited to deciding military matters – exemplifies how completely broken this mindset is.
Though no single opinion of the Court commanded a majority, eight of the nine justices of the Court agreed that the Executive Branch does not have the power to hold indefinitely a U.S. citizen without basic due process protections enforceable through judicial review.
That doesn’t seem very conflicted to me. I think this case is clear evidence that our Constitution is more than adequate, and should not be casually set aside in the name of perpetual warfare. Our legal system is the only thing standing between citizens and indefinite detention. I think that’s an important role, and not one that should be outsourced to the military – which reports in circular fashion to the executive.
The mindset that is broken is the one that wants to change our Constitution.
Peace.
DS
Now and Then – you’ll have to provide proof of your hearsay, o we might just think that you are trying to wriggle out of accountability and if you considered that Beck’s words were inadmissable then why did you use them?
David S.
Your economic data has nothing to do with your statement that low tax policies result in only a wealthy class.
You’ve ignored the fact that a complex industrial economy must have multiple levels of production and consumption of wealth. It cannot be a homogeneous collective, for that would reduce all to the LCD – rather like a bowl of jello…and that would end industrial activity.
Inequalities, also known as asymmetry, are vital in an active system. There must be some wealth that is considered ‘long term’ and invested in the future, i.e., in industries, in research, in long term projects. If you consume everything NOW, then there’s no future. So, inequalities of ownership of w wealth are necessary.
Public, by which I presume you mean centralized control doesn’t necessarily result in improved education. In fact, as Hayek outlines clearly, centralized control reduces the innovative activities in learning. What do you mean by ‘improved education’?
How does business ‘maximize human potential’? This doesn’t make sense. Business has no role in such an endeavour. How would it do so? You are just talking ‘leftist sophistry’.
And are you going to provide proof that business leads to poverty, disease, death and inequality’ (whew, quite the list). Does that mean that, according to you, to solve the realities of poverty, disease, death and inequality, there should be ‘no business’? Hmm?
No industries developing new inventions? No jobs for anyone? Business causes disease? Business causes poverty? Incredible. Provide some evidence for this list.
Inequality? There will always be inequality. Some people are smarter than others, can run faster, can work longer, can think better, can…Some parents look after their children; some abuse them..
The current state of the world. Yes, free market capitalism has lifted the mass out of poverty – which still exists in areas that are run by tribal dictators but in the free world, the greatest percentage live a middle class life, with opportunities for learning,work and freedom unheard of in the 14th, 15th and even 19th centuries. So, the free market works very well. Now provide YOUR proof that it doesn’t..and that means specific proof.
Why, you can even check everyone’s favorite web site, Wikipedia, and it say that the percentage of the world’s poor has halved sinc 1981. The proportion of the developing world’s extreme poverty group fell from 28% in 1990 to 21% in 2001.
Other factors to note, are that life expectancy has increased, child mortatlity decreased, ad freedoms have increased.
Supreme Court judges with a conservative perspective? Well, there’s Tony Scalia – an incredible mind. And Roberts.
Presidents? The Founding Fathers, certainly. And I’ll include Bush, in his foreign relations, with his focus on giving power to the people in Iraq.
I’m utterly indifferent to hate or love for gays. That’s up to the individual not the state. Again, it’s the left who are moral relativists -egt supporting Islamic repression of women as ‘their right’.
Hamdi-Rumsfeld was rejected by the Supreme Court. Try again.
Congress approved the Iraq War. Senate Vote of 77-23, House vote of 29-133 to authorize Bush to attack Iraq. That’s all that’s needed,according to the constitution, section 8.
An evangelical Christian, white, black, purple or yellow, is NOT a fanatic or a fundamentalist. Don’t you know that?
Oh – and are you biased against Christians? Do you decide on the value of people by their skin color?
You’ll need more evidence and an analysis by you, that the GOP are ‘unable to grasp secular govt’. Just saying – look at their party platform is useless as an argument.
What discrimination against homosexuals are you talking about??
You are the Person of No. That’s all you do- is write ambiguous outlines of ‘no’.
Conservativism is best outlined by such as Hayek and Popper. There’s Hayek’s books, and Popper’s ‘The Open Society’.
Conservativism is about small, non-intrusive decentralized government, that allows local flexible decision-making to deal with changes and local needs. It has no agenda of ultimate perfection, no illusions about an unachievable equality of life but is focused on enabling the individual to explore, as much as possible within the boundaries of reality and humility, his life capacities.
It acknowledges that not all are capable and inserts not the state but local charity into their care.
Conservativism is not an ideology of utopia (as is the left), but is without an ideology of ‘perfection’. It is more piecemeal, an action of bricolage rather than a grand Plan To Solve It All (as is found in the left).
It attempts to set free the critical and reasoning powers of individual men to govern themselves, without an elite ruler class. It focuses on the individual as a free, responsible agent with rights to the results of his work and private property.
It does not seek to make everyone happy, does not seek social justice (whatever that means), has no idea of linear progress to perfection. Its operation is to help individuals live as free-thinking working human beings, which thus enables them to think, invent, innovate…to enable them to interact and communicate with each other..in a secure envt.
As such, the limited duties of govt, as outlined in the Constitution, are more than enough tasks.
This is a new crop. You can’t fight the enlightenment with mere fisticuffs.
“Meet the new crop. Same as the old crop.”
To repeat myself:
I have come to the conclusion that, for both sides of the political spectrum, there is nothing short of God Himself coming down to Earth to declare the other side wrong that will change anyone’s mind. This is why the only fundamental solution to the political strife is to split the country into two OR to practice true federalism.
Everything else is a band-aid on top of a shotgun wound to the head and is a waste of everyone’s time and energy.
The idiot David S is right. What is needed is the practical, not merely intellectual, debunking of his ideas, which can only be accomplished if they are allowed to play out in a social context where there is no “outside aid”.
Much like Castro’s Cuba started really going downhill once the Soviet Union fell. These idiots will be singing the praises of capitalism inside of 20 years, just like the Cubans are now.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0724/p01s01-woam.html
There is no a priori way to convince them of this, just like there’s no way to convince a dog with rabies not to bite. The only solution for one’s own sanity is to quarantine oneself from their prying, grubby paws. Their energies will burn out when they knock themselves against the cold brick wall known as reality for a couple of decades. With any luck, they’ll fall to killing each other in round after round of “whose the most pure Leftist?” purges.
“Conservatives don’t seem to appreciate the value of public investment in education. Or anything else, save the military. There are solid economic reasons to make a public investment in improved education.”
Are you saying that my conservative school-teaching, later school-administrating mother, along with her conservative co-workers, don’t understand public investment in education ? Whoa.
Likewise, are you also stating conservatives prefer living in a run-down community instead of voting for community projects that enhance the infrastructure and begrudge funds being given to after-school activities ?
This is all a big surprise to me.
An example of a Conservative taking care of his community:
My husband designed and built a wheelchair ramp for our [Liberal, retired school principal] neighbor and only charged for the materials and not for his time and labor.
When our community mailbox was vandalized, my husband didn’t wait for the ‘government’ to fix it (which would have taken months according to our mail-person), no, he payed one of his employees to help him fix and reinforce it himself out of our own pockets. The neighbors thanked us and were relieved that my husband had our mailbox fixed within 4 days.
I babysat and fed my neighbor’s children free of charge after school hours when their parents both worked. I also took care of my daughter’s best friend who came from a broken home.
My husband just recently as of last month drove from WA state to Idaho to play guitar for a fund-raiser to help the scouts of America over a weekend. He was gone five days without pay even though we can’t afford it right now.
I could go on…
So, David S.,
Enlighten me. What have you done personally for your own community besides click ‘yes’ to spend other people’s money for your party’s pet projects?
habeas corpus applies only to US citizens. I applaud Antonin Scalia’s dissenting opinion against the SCOTUS applying it to all noncitizen detainees held at Guantanamo.
A key problem in terrorism is the definition of who, what, and why terrorism exists. They certainly can’t be covered under the Geneva Conventions which refer only to the official military of nations. They aren’t, for the most part, citizens of the country they attack. IF they are citizens, then it is easy to try them under criminal law. But what about those who are not citizens and yet, who attack another nation? We have no legal means as yet to deal with them – which is why we prefer to try them in military court.
David S – could you explain what you mean, that ‘complacency by Bush led to9/11′? That’s a strange comment.
Are you saying that we should not fight the terrorists in open warfare? After all, their bombings and attacks are open warfare. What are you suggesting that we do when they bomb civilians?
You consider that the Iraq invasion was ‘poorly managed’. Could you clarify this? Certainly, establishing law and order is a great challenge in Iraq – but you know this anyway. After all, a population that had never ruled itself, never experienced a constitution or democratic rule of law but that had been run by totalitarian dictators, who kept the population divided into antagonistic tribes and sects…it’s difficult to move out of that. But you know that already.
What do you mean, ‘setting aside our constitution in the name of perpetual warfare’?
@50. David S: – Our US Constitution includes the right to habeas corpus.
Really?
You should try actually researching these things before you spout off the overwhelming ignorance imparted to you during your unsuccessful education, Zippy. You’ve obviously never even READ the U.S. Constitution. You should.
Nowhere in the Constitution is habeas corpus enumerated or referenced as a “right”. In the one and only place it’s mentioned at all – aptly referred to as the Suspension Clause – habeas corpus is explicitly referenced as a privilege, not a right, and as such, unlike a right, it can be suspended per prevailing circumstances.
What’s more, the US Constitution is utterly mute on the subject of habeas corpus in the context of unlawful combatants during a time of war. What it does say is the following: “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”
In both of these cases, the ‘unless’ conditions required by the Constitution were clearly and unequivocally met – especially if we use the precedent set by FDR’s United States Executive Order 9066, authorizing internment camps for persons of Japanese ancestry during WWII, and imprisoning U.S. Citizens for the duration of the war with NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that they intended to commit acts of war against the US (in stark contrast to Hamdi and Padilla, who were declared combatants pursuant to their own behavior).
- That doesn’t seem very conflicted to me.
That’s because – as always – you have no idea what you’re talking about, Zippy.
The Suspension Clause makes no specific exception for “U.S. Citizens” or length of conflicts. In fact it is most correctly read as specifically applying in the case of U.S. Citizens, who attain privilege of the writ through that citizenship. The Supreme Court clearly knew this and intentionally ignored it.
This new “exception” was invented by an increasingly imperious court as a specious, politically-motivated justification for claiming jurisdiction over a case where it had none. So if – as you claim – “the mindset that’s broken is the one that wants to change our Constitution” – i.e., to mean something other than what it actually says – then thanks, you’ve just made my point for me. As always.
And are you going to provide proof that business leads to poverty, disease, death and inequality’ (whew, quite the list). Does that mean that, according to you, to solve the realities of poverty, disease, death and inequality, there should be ‘no business’? Hmm?
One of the trolls on here the other day said something like, “If we hadn’t pursued the war in Iraq, we could have solved world hunger with that money”. This is the level of childishness we are dealing with.
I can’t think of the authors name offhand, but there was a recent book showing the proportion of men whose physical remains showed evidence of dying in battle in early prehistory. The percentage was huge and if carried forward to the 20th century, would have meant something like another billion dead in the various wars of the last 100 years. Capitalism is peaceful compared to all of the systems that existed before it.
As far as poverty goes, each person occupies a niche in the division of labor. It’s not as if were I to disappear, some random guy making $5/day in Africa could step in and do my job. The next most logical person to replace me would be the person whom I beat out at my job interview. That person likely had just about the same education and everything I have, but may have just been a bit off that day or whatever. And so on down the line until you get to the unemployed and, hence, poverty-striken individual, who lost out for a job to someone just slightly more qualified. AT BEST, you can make a claim that the guy who is jobless can be provided with a subsidy slightly less than the income he would have otherwise earned had he gotten that job, which is basically what welfare is. To say that the jobless individual is in poverty because of some other reason is to engage in a false cause and effect analysis. The root cause of poverty is existence.
@56. goy:
In the one and only place it’s mentioned at all – aptly referred to as the Suspension Clause – habeas corpus is explicitly referenced as a privilege, not a right, and as such, unlike a right, it can be suspended per prevailing circumstances.
There is no rebellion, and there is no invasion – those are the only two conditions under which habeas can be suspended. This is not something that Congress can legislate away, or that the executive can ignore.
In both of these cases, the ‘unless’ conditions required by the Constitution were clearly and unequivocally met – especially if we use the precedent set by FDR’s United States Executive Order 9066, authorizing internment camps for persons of Japanese ancestry during WWII, and imprisoning U.S. Citizens for the duration of the war with NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that they intended to commit acts of war against the US (in stark contrast to Hamdi and Padilla, who were declared combatants pursuant to their own behavior).
No, the conditions for suspension clearly were not met. And FDR’s actions were declared unconstitutional, just like those of Bush.
The Suspension Clause makes no specific exception for “U.S. Citizens” or length of conflicts. In fact it is most correctly read as specifically applying in the case of U.S. Citizens, who attain privilege of the writ through that citizenship. The Supreme Court clearly knew this and intentionally ignored it.
The suspension clause only applies in cases of invasion or rebellion – neither condition is satisfied. There is no basis for your contention that the writ is unavailable to non-citizens.
This new “exception” was invented by an increasingly imperious court as a specious, politically-motivated justification for claiming jurisdiction over a case where it had none. So if – as you claim – “the mindset that’s broken is the one that wants to change our Constitution” – i.e., to mean something other than what it actually says – then thanks, you’ve just made my point for me. As always.
You can’t just ignore the writ on a whim. The “imperious” court is in this case the last bulwark of our Republic, which truly is an empire if indeed habeas has so little force as you claim. The Constitution clearly protects this privilege against waiver or suspension under all but very specific circumstances. Those circumstances do not exist – and your desire to make the Constitution fit your interpretation does not make it so.
Peace.
DS
What abandonment of habeas corpus? It certainly hasn’t happened to citizens in the US!
Actually it has, Lincoln suspended the writ of habeus corpus during the War of Northern Aggression (or Civil War for the publicly educated). Prominent figures such as the Mayor of Baltimore, MD and the grandson of Francis Scott Key were imprisoned during this time. When told it was unconstitutional by the SCotUS, Lincoln basically told them to get bent because he had the Army.
However you also have to look at things with a perspective on the times. The Republicans were not the “conservatives” of the time but rather the “liberals”. The Abolitionist movement was akin the the Environmentalists or PETA of today. You had some moderates and some radicals, John Brown and Nat Turner were of the radical stripe and by their actions basically killed all legislation and discussion in the Southern States regarding emancipation. Many slave states were debating how and when to abolish slavery at that time, their uprisings killed such discussions and lead to harsher laws regarding slavery. It is also noted by foreign observers that bigotry towards blacks was far greater in the North than in the South.
Sadly however like many “liberal” ideas freeing the slaves was poorly thought out, it made them “feel good about themselves” but basically impoverished most former slaves as it left them with little to no education, few skills for earning a living, and what skills they did have were nearly useless as the Union Generals had destroyed and impoverished most of the South leaving few places they could find employment. Blacks weren’t welcome in the Northern States, and it wasn’t until the Great Depression that many blacks moved to the urban ares of the north.
Goy – Well stated and I appreciated it but what’s the point in debating the noise? They’re just here to pull their pants down.
18. baal: “10. biblio44: 9. Now and Then: “Hi guys, just here to remind you that your messiah got his start in politics turning tricks for a slumlord.”
Holy Sh-t! Really??? The things they don’t tell you in Hebrew school!
David S – the habeas corpus is a privilege – that’s what it says, not an inalienable right. Therefore, a government can remove it (while a govt can’t remove inalienable rights).
The Islamic fascist attacks (remember them?) were most certainly definable as an invasion and a threat to ‘public safety’.
Who declared FDR’s and Bush’s actions ‘unconstititutional’? [That's the problem with using the passive tense; it neatly gets the writer out of the obligation of telling us WHO did that particular action.]
The habeas corpus cannot be available to non-citizens since they are not subject to the laws of the US, unless their actions were carried out on US soil.
And your ridiculous ordering of us to ‘peace’ is sophomoric. Teenage beauty queens are all for it without understanding that peace isn’t a solution.
Scott – yes, nice outline of the economic impoverishment resulting from freeing the slaves without an input economy being there to use their work and an educational system to enable them to catch up to the industrializing US.
This is why the only fundamental solution to the political strife is to split the country into two OR to practice true federalism.
LOL. Yeah, that worked out really well. I mean, unless you were black. And if you don’t count the civil war.
Veni–
Your accusation of my being an Alinksy worshiper=not probable. My accusation of you being an idiot…there is a wealth of data. You lose again.
@48.
“This is a new crop. You can’t fight the enlightenment with mere fisticuffs.”
Any chance you can pass that message on to your union thugs?
#58 David Schor – 9/11 was an invasion. Domestic terrorism is rebellion. Massive uncontrolled illegal immigration is an invasion. All these things are in existence today. We have an enemy who has the ability to attack us on our shores, has done so, and has declared his intent to do so yet again. So, yes the prerequisites exist for suspension of habeus corpus. I’d do it in a heartbeat as Prez w/Congress’ approval, of course.
goy – Habeus corpus is spelled out as a right in the Bill of Rights.
And a btw (OT), Privacy is also indicated. One cannot be forced to testify against oneself. One is to be secure in one’s person and property: no unreasonable searches or seizures without due process.
David S.
Indeed, Doy is arguing that the greatest thing about habeas corpus is that it is so easy to make a case for voiding it. Wow, what a country! Its funny to watch these bozos vacillate between claiming that habeas is sacrosanct and has never been voided, and that it is easily voided whenever we’re scared enough.
Personally I think we should dig the Tex-Mex Canal to replace the Panama which Jimmy Carter gave away. It would create jobs and it would be difficult to swim across.
27. venividivici:
. Take the thing you are most uninterested in and double that level of uninterestedness. Then multiply that by infinity and you’ve begun to scratch the surface.
Now that is funny…
Hope you do not mind me using that.
15. Moho. LMAO. Who writes your material??? You are beyond a doubt the best parody of a leftwing lunatic I think I have seen on any website. Ever think of doing something on SNL? You just keep better and better. Do they have a Nobel for this too? You’re it, if they do. Thanks for brightening my day!
@58. David S: – … there is no invasion …
Really?
You just can’t resist making yourself look like an idiot can you.
Is that your final answer, Zippy? Remember, you’re the ignorant dolt who just claimed that habeas corpus is enshrined in the Constitution as a “right”. Does it hurt to be that out-of-touch with reality? You sure you want to go with this?
Of course you do. And by doing so, you’ve just exhibited the stupidity of the broken mindset that treats terrorist warfare as a law enforcement problem – by refusing to acknowledge reality.
Here’s the reality.
Contrary to your desperately erroneous, unfounded assertions, during the Clinton administration America was indeed invaded by radical islamist foreign nationals with the express intent of committing an act of war against the U.S. These invaders were never discovered, and they made good on their intent on 9/11/01, committing a clear-cut act of war and killing almost 3,000 Americans. QED.
A Republican President was left holding the bag and forced to deal with the mess (left behind by Clinton’s failed foreign policy and broken intelligence apparatus), and his actions ultimately led to the decimation of al Qaeda through their military defeat in Iraq.
- FDR’s actions were declared unconstitutional…
Really?
EO 9066 was upheld as constitutional by the SCOTUS in Korematsu v. United States and it stood as written until it was rescinded by a Republican President exactly 34 years later. Again – is it physically painful to be so completely out-of-touch with the facts?
In the years that followed it was discovered that the racist Roosevelt administration had lied outright in its case against Korematsu: Roosevelt had cravenly suppressed his administration’s own findings that Japanese-Americans on the West Coast were not, in fact, security threats. They had been interred solely based on their race.
Korematsu’s conviction was later overturned on that basis, but the EO itself had already long since been rescinded.
In 1982 a commission appointed by Congress declared that Roosevelt’s actions were not justified. They determined that Roosevelt’s actions were driven by “race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership,” but they never declared his actions “unconstitutional”, since they didn’t have the authority to do so. Only the SCOTUS can do that.
In 1983 a Republican President publicly apologized for Roosevelt’s racist deceit and signed into law a bill providing over a billion dollars in reparations to Japanese Americans in an attempt to right the wrongs resulting from FDR’s lies.
In 1992 another Republican President signed a bill adding another $400B to the reparation funds paid to surviving Japanese American detainees.
Again we find Republican leaders cleaning up the mess left behind by leftist windbags.
.
You’re sorta right about FDR’s actions, though – they were declared unconstitutional alright. But the actions declared unconstitutional were big chunks of his so-called “New Deal”. Those portions were rightly declared unconstitutional and repealed.
In keeping with the deceit and outright disrespect for the Constitution he exhibited in the Korematsu case, FDR’s response to the court’s decision was an attempt to pack the SCOTUS with more judges sympathetic to his national socialist program, which – on topic – had far more in common with Nazism than anything the conservatives have ever come up with.
FDR’s contempt for the Constitution and the legal system – the hallmark of the left ever since – has been made crystal clear. It’s no surprise you’re ignorant of all this, given the 6 years you wasted in college having your self-esteem polished while you studied the fine – albeit useless – art of mental masturbation.
Good article. We have a White House crawling with people who admire Mao, think Saigon was “liberated,” and want to create a totalitarian system in the good old USA. Those who still cling to Obama’s hope and change are in for some rude awakenings. So let’s not insult each other, but make better arguments. Time for adults to start thinking clearly.
@66. Marc Malone: – Habeus corpus is spelled…
No. And if spelling is the issue, it’s spelled “habeas”.
You’re confusing due process in criminal matters at law (Fifth Amend.) with the Suspension Clause’s restrictions regarding the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in the context of invasion or rebellion (i.e., acts of war). They’re two different things.
And here we see precisely the broken mindset of treating terrorist warfare as a law enforcement problem: by definition, such a mindset conflates those two different things as you’ve done here. That’s been a source of the controversy with respect to terrorists who commit or conspire to commit acts of war as combatants acting independently of any recognized State, especially if they are traitors who hold U.S. citizenship. The left – and imperious justices seeking expanded jurisdiction – want such ‘State-less’ actions to form the basis for a Get Out Of POW Camp Free card, which is demonstrably socially suicidal.
.
@67. Moho: – the greatest thing about habeas corpus is that it is so easy to make a case for voiding it.
Is that what you think, or was that your straw man fix for the evening? Are you really brain-dead, or just pretending? Feel free to answer ‘yes’ to any of these.
The original issue was Schor’s imbecilic inference regarding the “abandonment” of habeas corpus – a meaningless expression on its face. His vieled accusation was aimed at the Bush administration, as usual, but he was too busy equivocating to make the claim outright. Such a claim is only supportable through judicial activism and redefinition of the Suspension Clause to mean something other than what it actually says, and that’s exactly what the court did in the case he cited as “proof”.
LOL. Yeah, that worked out really well. I mean, unless you were black. And if you don’t count the civil war.
Yeah, because there hasn’t been any water under the bridge since then. Guess what, I’m not interested in your opinion that my preferences in the present should be ignored because of what someone else did in the past.
Your accusation of my being an Alinksy worshiper=not probable. My accusation of you being an idiot…there is a wealth of data. You lose again.
Moho, there are two kinds of consistency you display here. One, every “solution” to social and political problems you propose is Left of center and two, you continually deny that you are an adherent of any Left of center ideology. The only possible deduction from these two forms of consistency is that you are pretty much continually posting in bad faith. As for your judgment that I’m an “idiot”, I never take the judgment of an ass as anything but that. As I have said before, society, i.e. 3rd parties much smarter than you, have already “punched my ticket” as part of the smarty-pants segment of society. You want to argue I’m an idiot? Take it up with the admissions officers at my undergrad and graduate schools. Maybe you can convince them to come after me for a refund on the fellowships they gave me.
Now that is funny…
Hope you do not mind me using that.
Go ahead! On further reflection, though, I think I understated how uninterested I am in any of David S’ preferences! Would that he had sufficient class to be uninterested in my preferences in how much money to make. Alas, he somehow thinks it’s part of his business to get involved in that process because he and his Leftist pals can’t fund their grand schemes on their own.
ETAB and GOY:
So, is habeas a right or not? Marc Malone says it is. Cuz somebody here is gonna have to . . . oh, what was it . . . ” actually research these things before you spout off the overwhelming ignorance imparted to you during your unsuccessful education, Zippy.”
Yeah, that was it.
Boys, have at it.
Every time I read David S’s cheap, easygoing “peace” at the end of his defense of some equally indulgent political fantasy, I can’t stop sneering. I simply cannot take anyone seriously who would somehow think to end his comments with such a demeaned and meaningless word, however well informed the previous remarks may, at times, seem to be. The great Shakespearean critic, Harold C. Goddard wrote a brilliant essay on Romeo and Juliet, and in it, he pens a withering critique of such a half-hearted “peace” and the consequences of the people who toss about the word; he identifies it as Romeo’s great failing, and holds him complicit in the death of Mercutio. Peace is the stock-and-trade of devils, fools, and demagogues.
One, every “solution” to social and political problems you propose is Left of center and two, you continually deny that you are an adherent of any Left of center ideology.
This made me laugh out loud. I’ve never proposed any solution to anything here! I do come here to mock the delusions and hallucinations that the current crop of authoritarians claiming to be conservatives seem to suffer from. This site is a laugh a minute. And thanks for giving me another thing to laugh about. Either you can’t read or you don’t know who you’re talking to or you’ve simply imagined a whole panoply of conversations we’ve had. I can’t decide which it is, or which one is funnier.
You want to argue I’m an idiot?
No, need. You seem to be already convinced of it. As the following shows without a doubt, a person deeply conflicted and insecure about their own level of intelligence.
Take it up with the admissions officers at my undergrad and graduate schools. Maybe you can convince them to come after me for a refund on the fellowships they gave me.
Nothing says “I protest too much” faster than an anonymous poster bragging on the internet about things that can’t be proven.
54. Delia wrote:
I babysat and fed my neighbor’s children free of charge after school hours when their parents both worked. I also took care of my daughter’s best friend who came from a broken home.
Peter writes: Careful, Delia. In some areas of the country they’ll require you to get trained and licensed or face stiff fines for such activity!
The libs used to say “It takes a village.” Now they just cry “It takes the government!”
After reading most of the comments I forgot what the article was all about. Now and Then, Moho and Biblio44 are just trash talking leftists who like to antagonize the rational readers of PJTV. If you notice they seldom refer to the articles that started the conversation. They just bad mouth the other commentators. Their act is getting tedious. Their arguments which are based on liberals myths which were debunked years ago. When you are that much of a moron you should be living in MA. I’d like to confine them to one state, if possible.
70. digitalis asks:
15. Moho. LMAO. Who writes your material???
Peter writes: George Soros.
I’m not going to answer yes to your questions, so there’s one of your arguments down. The next is almost as easily negated. You argued that Jose Padilla [and his legal name is Padilla, I'm not sure what you seek to prove by showing that he has an Arab alias, perhaps you think that Arab names are inherently suspect]. Padilla was quite clearly denied a speedy trial after being held without charges for four years; he was denied the right to see the evidence against him. He was tortured. All of this, simply because the President commanded it. The second circuit found that the President did not have this right, and yet the adminsitration continued to detain him and continued to deny him habeas. He was only charged with a crime after years of pressure from outside groups.
Its quite clear, Goy that you did not know about this, nor did you care. That means you are criminally stupid and dangerously ignorant. Had Obama done it, I’m sure you’d be up in arms. But when its your team, the ethics go out the window.
Rbell. The difference between you and I, is that if I disagree with something you say, I focus on it specifically, offer empirical evidence of its falsehood and make you look like a clown. What you do is say “all you people are mean”. Word of advice, my friend, that’s hardly going to make me leave here, nor will it make me consider someone worth paying attention to. Ditto Digitalis, Bubblehead, who by themselves are not worth a comment of their own. There’s something to feel better about little Rbell. You’re not quite the dumbest authoritarian here.
“Nothing says “I protest too much” faster than an anonymous poster bragging on the internet about things that can’t be proven.”
Wow, something I agree with the troll on. Something new every day I guess.
80. Peter the Bubblehead:
Peter writes: Careful, Delia. In some areas of the country they’ll require you to get trained and licensed or face stiff fines for such activity!
Delia responds: LOL! Thank goodness all of them chillens iz all growed up now and thank g’ness I home-schooooooooled my own chile. If you don’t mind missing out on a tax break, home-birth and home-school and keep your child out of ‘the system’ as long as possible.
Now and Then -habeas corpus is not a right but a rule of law.
The law is a system by which the individual defines his relations with others in a society. As a rule of law, habeas corpus tells the individual that he has ‘ownership’, so to speak, over his ‘body’.
The King doesn’t own his body; the Master doesn’t own his body; the State doesn’t own his body. This means not only that this body and mind is ‘his’ but importantly, that this individual is held personally accountable for his actions.
This also means that the State cannot remove this ownership from him..nor..release him from that accountability. So, if the state arrests Mr. X for some reason, the state has to show Mr. X that it did so on the basis of some evidence about his specific actions.
The US can only negate or suspend this legal obligation in ‘cases of rebellion or invasion’ and thus, concern for the public safety. That is, equally, a legal decision.
MOHO we know you are not a NAZI or even looking for a Messiah because you are after all a SELF CONFESSED Jew Hating ARAB as we all know.
home-school and keep your child out of ‘the system’ as long as possible.
I would normally support your position. However, after reading your stuff here, I have to say that your home-schooling of your own children would amount to abuse in anyone’s eyes. Ignorance and stupidity don’t have to be congenital. Your children deserve a chance to make it past troglodyte status, even if you didn’t have one.
“To be fair, Roosevelt was really an early Progressive as was the Republican president, Woodrow Wilson.”
I’d always wondered if the GOP would ever go so far as to claim that a historical president who was a Democrat was actually a Republican, and it appears it’s happened. Woodrow Wilson, Republican. Sure.
@83. Moho: – I’m not going to answer yes to your questions…
You just did.
- .. and his legal name is Padilla …
No. His legal name is “Ibrahim” – the name under which he was married. Court records show that he had it legally changed in 1994. I’m sure no one told you.
And I’d pretend I’m not sure what you seek to prove by pretending that his chosen muslim name is irrelevant. But, well, the truth is that it’s clear to anyone with at least two functioning brain cells that you’re afraid to admit the guy was a known islamist terrorist from day one, and that he was held on that basis. As an unlawful combatant conspiring to commit acts of war against the U.S. in a time of war, he had no ‘right’ to a ‘speedy trial’, whether or not he was apprehended in a ‘war zone’. A trial was speciously granted to him after political pressure was brought to bear: just one more example of Bush’s failure to lead and the left’s socially suicidal stranglehold on America.
Ibrahim/Padilla/al-Muhajir was convicted in a court of law, but the precedents set by his case and Hamdi’s force the U.S. to defend against 21st century terrorist warfare using 1940s rules which are no longer applicable. I’m sure you feel safer as a result, knowing the feds aren’t going to come storming down your door and lock you away. It is, after all, all about you.
Moho, #84
Bush (and later Congress) set up military commissions to try our prisoners of war like Padilla, who were recruited for the Terror War launched against us by several easily-identified foreign governments. The Leftists in court blocked those commissions at every turn, though they were well founded in the history of such conflicts. These legal roadblocks set up by the Left ended up depriving alot of terrorists of speedy trials.
The problem, just to remind you, is that in a civil trial for war prisoners our secret anti-terrorist policies are open to discovery. Giving them this unprecedented right only emboldens our war enemies, while we are weakened and more exposed to senseless terrorist attacks like 9/11. I lost a dear friend in that attack as did many I know.
In the old days, if you captured an enemy soldier who dressed to meld with the locals, you could shoot him immediately, as a spy. And if he was a traitor spy, even worse. Can’t do that anymore, but the problem you don’t address or even appear to have any knowledge about still faces us.
War is not a shoplifting trial. Sad to state, but for me — they’re all prisoners of war, entitled to freedom as soon as the foreign governments they serve give up and surrender. The Prisoners of the Terror War are then stuck with life sentences, like the Nazi soldiers in Russia? Well, at least they are living, which is more than we can say for their innocent, nameless and, to the terrorists, faceless ciphers that are mere tools in their silly murder games.
The Enemy Inside
We hold the Office of President in such high regards and respect. We are ever watchful for that face in the crowd that intends do harm to the person holding that office. Every government security branch keeps a constant vigilance for groups with malice intent towards the President of the United States of America. America faces a grave present danger not from a foreign communist government engaged in changing this free nation into a slave colony, but from radical socialist inside America’s Whitehouse using the illusion of power and riches to sway Representatives in Congress, the Senate, and the news media to cancel out America’s founding father’s original checks and balance. This scenario is happening at this very moment, not form any foreign influences, but the enemy within.
Americans are used to bickering between political party, we hardly pay attention any more. The Constitution is eroding. Bills are passed, laws are made, and little by little, rights are taken away. Protest against these changing tides can barely be heard. America is a nation with tolerance for all, but not at the cost of individual’s freedoms.
To 87. ETAB
You forget to add that it can only suspend habeas corpus for US citizens… according to the gitmo SCOTUS rulings a non-US citizen’s right to habeas corpus CAN NOT be suspended under the US constitution.
Just another in a whole wonderful set of ruling that puts the US citizen at the lowest level of our legal system.
Nothing says “I protest too much” faster than an anonymous poster bragging on the internet about things that can’t be proven.
You keep pressing this line of attack and you don’t even seem to realize how ineffective it is, except in your mind, apparently. What you call “protesting too much” (is that the only line of Shakespeare you know?), is me trying to establish an objective context to have the discussion of how it is in fact (as you assert it is a fact) that I’m an “idiot” when people whose job it is to separate “idiots” from “non-idiots” in the context of consuming desirable goods which are limited in number (e.g. college admissions and financial aid, high-paying jobs at well-known companies) have decided to give me access to those goods over others. It’s as if that sort of objective context means nothing to you, which is just odd. You need to get out of your own head.
As I’ve basically realized, your definition of “intelligent” or “not an idiot” is someone who agrees with you. That’s fine.
Here is what I posted up above about my views of government:
The things I take seriously, in terms of interacting with others (which is one of the main themes of politics), are microeconomics and game theory. I take a “minimax” view of government powers, because I think that government is basically a rent-seeking kleptocracy, so I want to “minimize” the “maximum” amount of theft it can accomplish.
I guess I’m just sort of interested, in a “watching a train wreck” sort of way, in how you can go from that quite coherent and consistent view of government to calling me an “idiot”. I don’t think there are a lot of idiots out there talking about rent-seeking kleptocracies and minimax strategies designed to mitigate the inherent resemblance of governments to them. That’s why your critique of me is so full of fail. You act like you’re arguing against some straw-man NASCAR hillbilly evangelical Rush Limbaugh-listening conservative (or, as you said above, a popsicle sucking authoritarian or something), rather than me, who, whether you want to accept it or not, is, at the very least, much more formally-educated than you. Clearly. At best, you went to law school. It’s just funny how much your arguments depend on your being able to simply assert superiority over your opponent based on your opponent’s alleged characteristics. Again, you need to get out of your own head and into the objective world around you.
This made me laugh out loud. I’ve never proposed any solution to anything here!
OK, I guess that was a different Moho arguing in favor of single-payer on the health care reform threads. Also, and I’ve made this point to you before, you don’t seem to understand the deductive method very well (the book “The Pyramid Principle” has an excellent discussion of it, FYI). It’s actually quite straightforward to triangulate toward a person’s preferred “solutions” by watching what they critique and how they critique it. Since hardly any of the topics discussed on this site have an infinite number of solutions (which would be a scenario in which the deductive method would fail), the deductive method can pretty easily get the reader to a point where they’ve got a reasonable idea of what someone does favor by their statements about what they don’t favor. Perhaps some portion of your self-identity is bound up in being some sort of mystery man of political ideas who’s destiny in life is to cut the Gordian Knots of American politics? If so, now would be a good time to start cutting them because the political situation in this country is deteriorating quite rapidly.
Abdullah Muhajir ‘Foreign Servant to the Prophet
Allah’ is what Jose Padilla chose to be known as. His AQ application was found in Afghanistan,
he was given up by Abu Zubeydah. He had met at one point with Atta and with another figure, Adnan El Shukrijumah, who plotted to set off dirty bombs
81. rbell wrote:
When you are that much of a moron you should be living in MA. I’d like to confine them to one state, if possible.
Peter writes: Hey! Not EVERYONE in MA is a moron!
I am sorry to see that a thread that was proving to be both interesting and informative concerning conservatism has now been hijacked by a discussion on a low-life like Hose Padilla, aka, whatever. The name-calling can be ignored too. It is a meaningless digression.
For what it is worth, it is obvious to anyone who stops here that both ETAB and venividivici have excellent writing skills, deductive skills and are well informed. For the sake of the discussion please do not feel you must defend or explain yourself. It is clearly unecessary.
81. rbell:
“Now and Then, Moho and Biblio44 are just trash talking leftists who like to antagonize the rational readers of PJTV. If you notice they seldom refer to the articles that started the conversation. They just bad mouth the other commentators.”
I’m sorry, did you have an opinion on the article? If so, I missed it.
87. ETAB:
Why are you talking to me? It’s gum and marc malone you need to reconcile with.
Andie,
Wonderful article! This defines the my conservative beliefs to a T. Before I accepted Christ as my Savior, I was Agnostic. Even as a child growing up Agnostic, I knew our country was founded on Judeo-Christian values. I understood that believing in those values and following them was what made this country great.
The only reason people relate conservatives to Nazis is because most comservatives have Christian beliefs, and Hitler truly believed that he had been granted a special mission by God. And, in his sick, twisted mind he was looking for absolution and unconditional love. Something he did not get from his parents. His mother was his father’s foster daughter, and his father was a very overbearing, demanding man. They had an unhealthy marriage that adversely affected a young boy into delusions of grandeur, who actually was trying to seek the approval of his father (which he never received).
He used Christianity as a cloak for his insanity, just like David Koresch, Marshall Applewhite, and Jim Jones. Because these individuals behaved in the manner they did, Christians are given a bad reputation.
Now, it’s not limited to Christianity. The latest and most famous examples of power-grabbing and illusions of grandeur is ACORN. Using the guise of “community activism and support”, this organization has taken advantage of people, abused its power, and is still today commiting illegal actions. Only instead of using religion as a front, they used “community welfare”. The MSM has avoided covering this due to the fact that ACORN is not a group that holds to covservative values. If ACORN, SEIU, AFL-CIO, and the like were conservative organizations that had any hint of a religious beliefs among their founders, the MSM would have been all over it like stink on poo.
Again, awesome article, girl! Looking foward to more! I’m doing my happy dance for ya!
@77. uburoisc: – … David S’s cheap, easygoing “peace” …
PJM’s lame comment widget doesn’t support sigs, and he’s just too lazy to type out “Peace for our time”.
Zippy has made crystal clear the sort of delusional “Peace” he supports. It’s the sort of “peace” where an American President agrees to stop criticising Russia’s human rights record, stops backing Israel in preference of Hamas and Hiz’b'allah, ignores Iran’s Saddam-style subjugation of its people and its march toward nuclear war, drops his country’s plans for a missile shield, allows North Korea to run amok and stops building the F22 when it’s sorely needed.
David S’ is the sort of delusional “Peace” that has always guaranteed War.
89. Moho,
Considering my one and only beautiful daughter is fully grown-up, confident, intelligent and loves me to bits…
All I gotta say to you, homey is…
RICK ROLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
[heh]
Andie,
Wonderful article! This defines the my conservative beliefs to a T. Before I accepted Christ as my Savior, I was Agnostic. Even as a child growing up Agnostic, I knew our country was founded on Judeo-Christian values. I understood that believing in those values and following them was what made this country great.
————————————————-
What exactly are these “Judeo-Christian values”? They would have to be values that only Jews and christians have and no one else. I’d love to know exactly what they are. I hear about them all the time but no one ever elaborates on what exactly these Judeo-Christian values are that only Jews and christians have and no one else does.
Simply restating your opinion and then backing it up with your emotional certainty of Padilla’s guilt may win the hearts and minds of the microencephalics around here, but its pretty weak bs anywhere else. Well, THEY KNEW HE WAS A TERRORIST FROM DAY ONE. How embarrassing for you, rhetoric truly fit for the autocratic regime that you wish to see installed in the US under a Republican banner.
Lastly, you complete idiot:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumsfeld_v._Padilla
Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426 (2004),
You’d better run yourself over to the guvament and tell em they got the wrong name on them there documents. Idiot.
Veni..
What you call “protesting too much” (is that the only line of Shakespeare you know?), is me trying to establish an objective context to have the discussion of how it is in fact (as you assert it is a fact) that I’m an “idiot” when people whose job it is to separate “idiots” from “non-idiots” in the context of consuming desirable goods which are limited in number (e.g. college admissions and financial aid, high-paying jobs at well-known companies) have decided to give me access to those goods over others. It’s as if that sort of objective context means nothing to you, which is just odd. You need to get out of your own head.
I’d say its working pretty well.
@105. Moho: – … emotional certainty of Padilla’s guilt …
Emotional? Heh. You’d best take that one up with the jury who found him guilty. On all counts.
Meanwhile, I’ll be sure to pass along your weighty concerns regarding Ibrahim/Padilla/al-Muhajir’s legal name-change. I’m sure they’ll get right on it.
What exactly are these “Judeo-Christian values”? They would have to be values that only Jews and christians have and no one else. I’d love to know exactly what they are. I hear about them all the time but no one ever elaborates on what exactly these Judeo-Christian values are that only Jews and christians have and no one else does.
Phranc,
The Articles of the Constitution are loosely based on the Ten Commandments, and teachings the the Old Testament, which are read and followed by both Christians and Jewish alike. The Jewish belief is that Christ is a prophet, not the Son of God, whereas Christianity is based on Christ as the Son of God. Our inalienable rights as endowed to us by our Creator can be found in the Old Testament. If you’re not familiar with it, please read it. Everything about our country’s foundation will make perfect sense when you do. For those that have, we understand why these beliefs are so important to our country. Those values are not found in other religions, such as Wicca, Islam, Buddhism, Pagan, etc… These values work for a society that truly believes in the values, not for the power-hungry, corrupt, or morally deficient.
Hope this helps!
To: ETAB & vini…
I laud your efforts to try to have a serious discussion with the trolls, (DvidS, Moho, etc), but you are wasting your time! They don’t WANT a serious discussion. They are ignorant and LIKE it that way; your efforts to educate them are annoying the pigs (Moho & DvidS – this is an alliteration; I’m not suggesting you are actual swine)!
I, for one have GREATLY enjoyed your well-educated, thoughtful, logical and reasoned points, counterpoints and rebuttals. However, you have not made a dent in the liberal armor these twits clothe themselves in!
This is not a call for you to cease; on the contrary, you have provided the rest of us a priceless service by arguing these two goobers into logical knots and forcing them to reveal the shallowness of their education and how silly and self-serving their arguments are?
Bravo Zulu!
@ #104 Phranc:
You have raised a very good question which I would like to try to answer, if I may.
Judeo-Christian values simply mean those values taught in the Old and New Testaments. The fundamentals include love for all humans, feeling a sense of responsibility for the welfare of those around us and seeking to always care for our fellow humans to the best of our ability. True followers are expected to exhibit certain traits; humility, patience, love, integrity, public service, commitment to the community, honor, mild speech and honesty in all things.
Of all these things, the most important is love.
Judeo-Christian values are hallmarks of those who follow Judaism or Christianity. I don’t claim them exclusively for Jews and Christians and don’t think I have ever heard of anyone else claiming these qualities apply exclusively.
If you asked an honest question, I trust this honest answer is satisfactory.
Emotional? Heh. You’d best take that one up with the jury who found him guilty. On all counts.
Professor Goy at the lectern:
Indeed, if you’re certain that someone is guilty, then holding them in preventive detention for six years is totally ok. That’s totally not what the founders were talking about when they came up with HC and wrote about it in the Consitution. HC’s only for people who we think are innocent at the time of arrest. If we think they’re guilty, then, of course, we can do whatever we want. When a jury finds them guilty later, in the proceedings that we’ve been forced to give them because of what the founders actually wrote in the constitution, then that totally oks what we did when violated their constitutional rights. In fact, its a good idea to keep doing things that way. People we like should get a fast and speedy trial, people we don’t like should be treated like pigs.
LOL. My god, you’re really this dumb.
@104
Upon reading over my post I am embarrassed to note that I left out the most important part:
Judeo-Christian values include the belief that there is one all-powerful and all-knowning God who loves us and created us for His purpose. He has revealed Himself to us through the Old and New Testaments. He has been in communication with us as a whole ever since he first created us. He sacrificed His Son for our sakes so we would not have to stand before him and be convicted in our sins. Our ultimate purpose is to live with Him in His kingdom (heaven) as His people.
I think that about covers it.
112. bubblehead
♥AMEN♥
Meanwhile, the Euphrates River is drying up…
Judeo-Christian values include the belief that there is one all-powerful and all-knowning God who loves us and created us for His purpose. He has revealed Himself to us through the Old and New Testaments. He has been in communication with us as a whole ever since he first created us. He sacrificed His Son for our sakes so we would not have to stand before him and be convicted in our sins. Our ultimate purpose is to live with Him in His kingdom (heaven) as His people.
I think that about covers it.
Hmmm…this explains a lot. It must be comforting to not have to think anymore. The rest of us, who don’t rely on Judeo Christian values have to go and research things and actually know something when we cast our votes. If we don’t, we feel guilty about saddling our fellow citizens with our uninformed policy decisions. What a wonderful feeling to put everything on some invisible force, where you have no responsibility for anything.
Moho:Hmmm…this explains a lot. It must be comforting to not have to think anymore. The rest of us, who don’t rely on Judeo Christian values have to go and research things and actually know something when we cast our votes. If we don’t, we feel guilty about saddling our fellow citizens with our uninformed policy decisions. What a wonderful feeling to put everything on some invisible force, where you have no responsibility for anything.
It is an exciting feeling knowing history has been written and we are just living it. And to know when this is over, we will live in a whole new dimension. Never close your mind. You will be called and you can’t believe until you are. I know, I was where you are at one time.
@111. Moho: – Professor …
Thanks for demonstrating, again, that you can’t even breathe without the assistive device of a straw man fallacy.
Ibrahim/Padilla/al-Muhajir’s conviction – on all counts – was nothing more than a superfluous, extra-legal confirmation of the reasons for which he was constitutionally captured and imprisoned as an enemy combatant in the first place.
Unlike FDR’s racist internment of Japanese Americans in 1942 – which only survived legal scrutiny because FDR and his socialist administration committed the impeachable offense of outright perjury in the Supreme Court – Ibrahim/Padilla/al-Muhajir was not imprisoned because of his race, or even because he chose a muslim name. He was captured and held as an enemy combatant because of his own actions in support of an enemy of the U.S. in a time of war.
Ibrahim/Padilla/al-Muhajir’s imprisonment was perfectly in line with the Suspension Clause – the ONLY part of the Constitution that specifically mentions the privilege of writ of habeas corpus and, notably, makes no exceptions for U.S. citizens. The U.S. had been invaded by members of al Qaeda during the Clinton administration – one of the two conditions required – and was subsequently attacked by same. The Suspension Clause is intended specifically for such circumstances, i.e., to AVOID the nihilistic world view – your nihilistic world view – that insists the Constitution is a suicide pact, and that enemy combatants in a time of war must be afforded a criminal trial (‘speedy’ or otherwise).
And now that Ibrahim/Padilla/al-Muhajir has HAD his unearned day in court and been CONVICTED ANYWAY, you still whine.
Typical.
And ironic, as it turns out.
If Ibrahim/Padilla/al-Muhajir and his supposed “supporters” (like you) had remained sane and just shut the hell up, he’d most likely be free now. Teh One has declared that the War on Terror is ‘over’ and, by that rationalization, a mere ‘jihadist’ like Ibrahim/Padilla/al-Muhajir is no longer the enemy. By the standard rules of war he would be free. But as things stand, Ibrahim/Padilla/al-Muhajir faces another 15 years in prison.
Funny how karma works.
By conflating military and criminal jurisdictions, and treating terrorist warfare as a law enforcement issue – as Clinton’s administration did, leading us to 9/11, and as the courts did when Ibrahim/Padilla/al-Muhajir was erroneously given his day in court and STILL convicted on all counts (duh) – you only weaken our national security in order to preserve the illusion of your own.
History has shown that if and when our increasingly fascist government comes for you, they’re not doing to bother with legalistic nonsense, they’re just going to knock down your door or grab you off the street and throw you in a cage. And they won’t care whether you spent time consorting with terrorists or, in fact, tried to become one.
Mole-Hole,
Ever heard of a little thing called ‘Separation of Church and State’?
Yes, ‘In God We Trust’ is still printed/minted on our money but no fears…our new Monopoly pesos with Zero’s face printed/minted on it are in the works!
Zero.
@ countrygirl690
So these “Judeo-Christian” values aren’t real Jew or christian and can be found across the globe in any faith and those with no faith at all contrary to your bogus claim. Maybe you should read up on other religions you obviously know very little about. By the way you can believe in these values with out being Jew or christian. I’ve read the bible and nothing about it make any sense when looked at through the lens of our secular government. Your claims fail when looked at with intellectual honesty.
@ bubblehead:
By calling them “Judeo-Christian” you are saying, along with every one else, that they are exclusive to Jews and Christians. That is the whole point of differentiating them as “Judeo-Christian”. Thanks for trying to answer with honesty.
As for your embarrassing omission. Not a single bit of it has to do with the legally binding founding documents of this nation. The Founding Fathers intentionally left gods out of our government.
So to recap the “Judeo-Christian” values christians fallaciously attribute to founding this secular nation on are not exclusive to Jews or christains so are not “Judeo-Christian” but far more universal. The logical conclusion is that this country is not founded on “Judeo-Christian” values and those who claim it are liars, ignorant or both. Now all these people have to do is educate them selves or be honest.
The Articles of the Constitution are loosely based on the Ten Commandments…
—————————————————————–
Maybe some one would like to explain exactly how this is? No where did I see having no god but the christian god mentioned and nor did I see anything on the sabbath, honouring mom and dad making idols, coveting or adultery, lies, murders, stealing or taking the lords name in vain . Maybe I just missed them.
MOHO: To those who are perishing the righteous have the aroma of death. It is an actual quote from St Paul. He explains why there is such hatred for those whom have faith in the Savior. Our Lord who was put to death 2,000 years ago and after 3 days came out of the grave alive. He is still alive, waiting for the appointed time to return. Values have nothing to do with Christianity. People who aren’t Christians can have values that are postitive and beneficial to humanity. They just don’t save you in the end. There are 66 books that are canonical. You can study it. you can quote it. But it will never make any sense to those who are spiritually dead. So you redicule is understood.
@118 Phranc
WHAT???
I didn’t say they were exclusive to Jews and Christians. In fact, I pointed out that they ARE NOT exclusive. What they are is the foundation of our relationships with our fellow people. They are the tenets we live by. When people talk of Judeo-Christian values, this is what they mean.
Also, your question that I answered did not reference the “Founding Fathers”. Neither did I reference them. Why do you reference them now???
You asked what seemed to be a simple question. I gave a forthright answer. Now, you have “rebutted” my answer from VERY far afield.
Methinks your question was disengenuous and you are simply looking for an argument!
SHAME ON YOU!
GOy, simply repeating your wrong answer over and over again may work at home with your wife, but it won’t work with people who have no reason to feel sorry for you.
The majority opinion rejected the government’s argument comparing the habeas corpus restriction under the MCA to those affected by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, which were ruled constitutional after a suspension clause challenge. The Court explained the restrictions of AEDPA on habeas review were not a complete suspension on habeas corpus, but simply procedural limitations, such as limiting the number of successive habeas petitions a prisoner can file, or mandating a one-year time limit for the filing of federal habeas review that begins when the prisoner’s judgment and sentence become final. The main distinction between the MCA and AEDPA, the Court went on to explain, was that AEDPA applies in practice to those prisoners serving a sentence after having been tried in open court and whose sentences have been upheld on direct appeal, whereas the MCA suspends the application of the writ to those detainees whose guilt has not yet been legally determined.
…Distinguishing Guantanamo base from historical precedents, this conclusion allowed the court to conclude that Constitutional protections of habeas corpus run to that to U.S. Military base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Whew. Yelling the same thing over and over again doesn’t make it right, you nitwit.
Judaeo-Christian ethics, the terminology used in the US to describe the body of values, principles, and concepts that are held in common by Judaism and Christianity, along with Greco/Roman civilization, as the underpinning of liberty and equality from Genesis. This is the fundemental basis for Western legal codes and morality.
bubblehead:
I didn’t say they were exclusive to Jews and Christians.
————————————————
Then stop calling them “Judeo-Christian”. When you call them “Judeo-Christian” you are infact saying they are exclusive to Jews and christians. Its really not that hard to understand. When you say they are “Judeo-Christian” you are saying they are exclusive to Jews and christians. If they are not exclusive to Jews and christians they are not “Judeo-Christian” and you are either being ignorant of what you words mean or dishonest.
———————————————–
Also, your question that I answered did not reference the “Founding Fathers”. Neither did I reference them. Why do you reference them now???
————————————————-
Actually I asked what they are because people keep saying they are what our secular country is founded on. I asked what exactly they are and why exactly they are exclusive to Jews and and christians. The particular post you answered was a follow up of my earlier post. I’m sorry I assumed you had read all the posts and were following along. In the future I wont make the mistake of thinking you are keeping up so I will be sure to spell things out for you. To make it easy for you I will post my origianl question.
————————————————
7. Phranc:
That was great until you got to the point of religion. Thanks for addressing that not all conservatives are christian fanatics who proselytize. Then you fail buy not pointing out that many are of all faith and many are of no faith at all. It is this smug assumption that turns off many non-christian conservatives. Your quote of Adams is also repulsive to non-believers. The constitution is for Americans not just those with a god. And as a conservative I wholly do not agree with it and I know many others who do not either. Before you “clear up misunderstandings of conservatives” to liberals maybe you should make sure you aren’t doing it with your own glaring misunderstandings.
As for the claim that this country is founded on a Judeo-Christian base, what exactly is Judeo-Christian about it? These things would have to Judeo-Christian only and not shared by any other type of person. Not all of the Founders were Judeo-Christian by the way. Just because a christian creates something does not mean that creation is christian. The christian cook who made my pancakes at the waffle house made pancakes not chrstian pancakes base on Judeo-Christianness.
————————————————-
So yes shame on me for daring to ask a question that you could only answer with intellectually vacant answers.
And to conclude once again this country was not founded on values exclusive to Jews and christians or “Judeo-Christian” values. In fact there are no real “Judeo-Christian” values as believing in the Hebrew monotheistic god ,or for christians his son, are values. All these values claimed to be exclusive to Jews and christians by using the specific lable of “Judeo-Christian” are found in every culture and religion.
Didn’t they shoot the last conservative left in Massachusetts a few years ago?
The US Constitution does not require US citizens to believe in a deity. It does protect you if you do or don’t. Nevertheless, at the time the US Constitution was written law was based on ethics found in the Old and New Testiments-that’s just a fact. Since no US citizen is excluded from US law, what could the problem be with that fact today ? Believer and non-believer are treated equally.It is asinine to be offended by the truth in this. The religious police, unlike the case in some nations, will not appear at your door.
@119 Phranc:
You can agree with some tenets of Buddhism without being a Buddhist. The same goes for Judeo-Christian values. You don’t have to call yourself a Jew or Christian to share some of the same beliefs.
Commonly acknowledged morality is not found only in Judaism and Christianity, but the -American history- for the bases of OUR laws are.
As #123 Elliot pointed out, the American system of laws are a lineage of Judeo-Christian laws into Greco/Roman civilization with the establishment of a republic. We are a republic (based in law.)Our founders, aside from whether all actually believed in Christianity or Judaism, believed our rights to be basic human rights, given or taken away by no man (or government of men).
Our Declaration of Independence (reaffirmed in our Constitution) says: We are endowed by [our] Creator with certain unalienable Rights. The acknowledgement of a supreme Creator giving us our Rights as humans means that no man or government can take those Rights away. You, whether you personally believe in our Creator or not, benefit by the establishment of our Rights in such a manner. It means, at the very least, that government cannot take away rights it cannot give. Your Right to Life, Liberty and [property] Pursuit of Happiness are secure, no matter what “government” says or does. AND you are justified in re-establishing a government when it tries to take away those Rights.
“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
125: No I was not shot. I left voluntarily.
Look Phranc; just because you keep repeating it in a monotone does not make it true. “Judeo-Christian” is a shortcut phrase used because everyone, EVEN YOU are expected to know what it means. If I use the phrase “Conservative”, it is not synonymous with “American” or “Republican”. It is a shortcut and everyone knows what it means. QED.
The horse is dead and will no longer carry your argument. You have been given a reasonable explanation.
You are dismissed!
117. Delia:
“Ever heard of a little thing called ‘Separation of Church and State’?”
Now, imagine the uproar from our self-anointed Constitutional scholars here at PJM if a liberal had typed that.
Please feel, free to spout your principles to one of your own. Perhaps goy and etab and marc malone can tackle this one once they reconcile habeas corpus.
I thought our laws came from English Common Law that took cues from law before christanity even invaded the Islands. A creator does not mean a supreme being. It might to you but I was created by two people. They left that vague for a reason. I always find it sad that religious people need to put in their god and expect rational people to think it means their god too. It’s just another shining example of their arrogance much like calling a phrase that explicitly defines the values as “Judeo-Christian” as a short cut. It is a dishonest “short cut” and phrase since they are not explicit to Jews and christians. In an arrogent attempt to high jack the nation they falsely attribute their religion when in fact it is a fairly universal value set. This is a secular government with secular laws and so many of you religious people just can’t handle that. You have to have you god in charge. They left out god and religion when they founded this secular nation for a reason. But since then religion has been put in. Its in the oath when the oath didn’t originally have it. And that was written by a preacher. It has been put into the money when it wasn’t there originally. And you religious people are inserting your religion onto the founders where it wasn’t there before with dishonest terminology. It must really be hard to live a life where you find a need to insert your dogmas and god in every place you can. But you guys keep putting your imaginary super friend in every where you can fit it while you can whether its honest or not. Keep using dishonest words to flex your religions muscles. Just remember your false god is only one of the newest that will fall to myth along with all the others that came before it. Remember also that your christian god came from the Hebrew god who was picked out of many Hebrew gods.
@122. Moho: – … Distinguishing Guantanamo base from historical precedents …
Heh. Plagiarizing legal opinions from Wikipedia now? Wow, that’s pretty pathetic and desperate.
You think copying and pasting legal “analysis” from Wikipedia gives you credibility? Really?
You think copying and pasting legal “analysis” from Wikipedia on a case unrelated to Ibrahim/Padilla/al-Muhajir gives you credibility? REALLY?
The stuff you plagiarized is not relevant to Ibrahim/Padilla/al-Muhajir – he wasn’t being held at Guantanamo. I’m sure no one notified you.
Your ham-handed misuse of Boumediene doesn’t help you, Mo, but I’ve been hoping someone would bring it up because it supports exactly what I’ve been saying. The fact that the case was ever heard at all blows Zippy’s original, sophomoric assertion out of the water.
If you were capable of looking at any of this objectively, which you’re not, you would observe the utter confusion in the way Ibrahim/Padilla/al-Muhajir’s case bounced back and forth through the courts, decisions flip-flopping as it went, clearly demonstrating the legal system’s inability to deal justly with military / wartime issues. You’d also notice that the Boumediene verdict, in particular, was decided along partisan lines, which clearly indicates politics, not justice. A single vote swung the other way would have been as unjust, but I’m sure you’re incapable of comprehending that. And I’m sure you won’t comprehend it until a partisan panel of justices overturns Roe v. Wade.
All of these cases validate the point I’ve been stressing, which is, first, that habeas corpus was never “abandoned” by the Bush administration and, second, that all this nihilist nonsense about treating enemy combatants as “criminals” leads only to politically motivated judicial activism, not justice, and certainly not national security.
The Occam’s Razor approach leads to one conclusion: the confusion in ALL of these cases and the controversy they’ve generated is caused by the fact that the courts were never intended to have jurisdiction over military or wartime matters. The courts are too easily manipulated by partisan politics, as they have been in all of these instances. The left pressed these cases to attack Bush and the Republican Party, not to preserve anyone’s rights. You and the rest of the trolls here all know that.
Thanks, again, for continuing to prove my point.
Phranc: So these “Judeo-Christian” values aren’t real Jew or christian and can be found across the globe in any faith and those with no faith at all contrary to your bogus claim. Maybe you should read up on other religions you obviously know very little about. By the way you can believe in these values with out being Jew or christian. I’ve read the bible and nothing about it make any sense when looked at through the lens of our secular government. Your claims fail when looked at with intellectual honesty.
Well, someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed today. You asked a simple question, and I answered in a polite way, only to be smacked down in a rude way. If you have done the research you stated a non-believer needs to do to come to an intelligent conclusion, you would take note that our national monuments in D.C. ALL have religious references. The Ten Commandments are carved into the doors of the Supreme Court, Laus Deo (Praise be to God) is on the east face of the Washington Monument, and Pierre Charles l’Enfant (the original designer of the layout of D.C) created a perfect cross imposed upon the landscape … with the White House to the North, the Jefferson Memorial to the South, the Capitol to the East, and the Lincoln Memorial to the West. Also, 52 of the 55 founders of the Constitution were members of established orthodox churches. There is no doubt that this country was founded on these values. Whether or not a US citizen believes in a higher power is not the case, it is the undeniable fact that we ARE founded on these principles. To look at the Bible “through the lens of our secular government” today would not make sense to most people, because our Constitution and laws have become a huge convoluted mess over the past hundred years or so. No one can really make any sense of the laws nowadays, and we as a country have started pulling away from God. If a country is based on a particular set of laws and beliefs, and the citizens do not share those same beliefs, how can the system work? Simply put, it can’t.
FYI: I had to study multiple religions in the private school I attended for three years. It was a Xavrian brother college prep school (the best school my blue-collar parents could afford). Though I work full time, volunteer at church, am remodeling my home, and volunteer as a key spouse for my husband’s squadron (helping spouses of deployed), I still take the time to learn all I can about politics and religion in today’s world. After all, one always affects the other in a drastic way, and changes the future of all nations.
Thanks for playing, Phranc. If you have not brushed up on your knowledge of the Founding Fathers and the birth of our country, then you might want to stay on the porch until you’re ready to play. I posted my explanation, and am ready for a new argument. I hate repeating myself. I agree with bubblehead. Stop beating a dead horse – it will get you nowhere.
Can’t you trolls GOOGLE worth a feck?
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/h001.htm
@ 131 Phranc:
“I thought our laws came from English Common Law that took cues from law before christanity even invaded the Islands”
I guess you are referring to the Druids as the sole authors of Common Law. Britain’s laws don’t hinge completely on the unwritten laws of the Druids. It’s infused with the Laws of Nature’s God as well.(As is the American system of laws.) Which, enforces the same point I made to you that Jews and Christians weren’t the only religious groups to have laws of morality.
I’m going to stop arguing with you because I believe you understand everyones’ points. I just wish as an (American?) you would understand “freedom” comes from free-will: A concept based heavily in religious belief. Without freedom, we are but slaves.
Let go of your anger. That too makes you a slave(to your emotions). It can blind you to reason.
You’re right, I used Wikipedia. If you don’t like Wikipedia, that’s your business, and you can spend the next hour or so madly scrambling to find a bogus way to bs your way around this too:
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/06/court_sides_with_gitmo_detaine.html
“The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times,” Kennedy wrote. …Congress responded by passing an act that stripped away those statutory rights. The cases decided Thursday reviewed that act and found that Congress’ act was invalid for constitutional reasons, saying that Congress can only suspend habeas in incidences of rebellion or invasion. …The court also said that the appeals system set up by the congressional act, which gave detainees the right to a limited appeal to the federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., was an inadequate substitute for habeas corpus rights.
The courts simply gave up on ruling on HC in the Padilla case. But Hamdi relates to Padilla just as it does to any citizen.
You’ve used nothing but your own bellowing asinine self. You’ve proved nothing except that you have the endurance of a jackass at braying the same incongruent point over and over, despite all evidence to the contrary. I have proved your point, you’re right, because you’ve been intent on proving that you’re a dangerously self-made ignoramus and imbecile. You’ve made that point to such an effective degree that I’ll simply retire and crown your argument the winner.
There is no natures god so there are no laws to contribute to it. In fact all the laws that the mythical god set forth only 3 are found in law. Those would be the lie, steal and kill ones. Laws found across the globe and in writings predating the Hebrews. And common law has more in common with Hammurabi’s code then it does Jews and christians. See morals, laws and values that forged this nation are not “Judeo-christian” but universal. And “taking cues from” does not equal “sole author” but I can see why you need so badly to make that dishonest connection. Freedom has nothing to do with religion. And neither does free will except when religious people are critically questioned as to why an all powerful god would allow non-believers. Its the typical cop out answer.
@ countrygirl.
I live in DC. There a “crosses” in the roads all over. Perfect ones too. The ten commandments are laws and are the doors to SCOTUS. Do you think Lefant knew that Lincoln would be POTUS or was just a coincidence? I’ll let try to figure that one out. There are religious sayings and symbols all over the government buildings. Thats what happens when christians impose them selves on the secular government. How many of those buildings were built during the founding anyway? Any way they can, they will stick christianity in there. We are forged on principals they just aren’t “Judeo-christian” they are pretty universal. Not sure what your life story has to do with this not being a “Judeo-christian” country based on “Judeo-christian” values. I went to a catholic school and a military school. And that is just as irrelevant as your education but I figured I’d humour you since you think it matters. But you are nothing more then another christian so desperate to insert their religion in places it doesn’t belong. Don’t worry though its a long established thing to do. The founders left religion out and people like you put it in because you need to. You need to think the country and government thinks just like you and has the same make believe super friend. It makes one wonder why peoples faith is so weak internally they have to it put out every where for every one to see even in places it never was before.
Our founders believed church should not run state and vice versa, and they wanted to live in a country that allowed them to practice their religion without fear of persecution. No laws can be made that are not influenced by life experiences in some way. That holds true for all members of the judiciary committee, as well as any organization or group. Our founding documents are influenced by Christian values, whether you want to admit it or not. Read the history of our founding fathers, and how faith in a higher power made these men who they are and this country what it is. Don’t care if anyone likes it or not, it’s the truth. As for the comment of me being a Christian trying to insert religion where it does not belong, you are completely dead wrong. Our founders were openly religious, and some of the most famous quotes by them involve God. If you read my statement, I was Agnostic growing up, and only accepted Christ as my Savior last year. I’m 35. I STILL understood as an Agnostic that this country was founded on Christian values, and it did not bother or offend me in the least. My faith is definitely not weak, as you apparently have none. Faith is what gives me the strength to deal with the stresses of everyday life, cope with losses of close family members, and encourages me to do the most I can to help my fellow man. Though I wish all people would find the peace and solace I have by accepting Christ as their savior, I do not want to force my religious beliefs on others. I did not like it when I was younger when it happened to me. Seems as though the catholic school and military school were for strict structure for you, since you seem to have a negative attitude toward Christianity. Which is really a shame.
Like I said, Phranc, thanks for playing.
NO,BUT LIBERALISM IS LIKE STALINISM!
Phranc, perhaps this will help ? The founding fathers were, after all, Europeans. Their lives were greatly impacted by the results of Western Civ.-Classical Antiquity>feudal Christendom>holy wars>the Renaissance>the Reformation>Enlightenment>etc.. The world they lived in had many Judaeo-Christian underpinnings. They were surrounded by believers. They were also men of the world and read everything imaginable. Of course US laws are taken from English common law, but there is a long story in that evolution too. To believe that Judaeo-Christian ethics had no part of that foundation and the 18th Century colonies and didn’t influence the thinking of those people is unreasonable. The history of Western Civilization belies that notion. The US governing powers are secular in that they do not favour any belief or disbelief over any other, but the members of that governing body have been overwhelmingly followers of the Judaeo-Christian ethical persuasion and were not, until recently, influenced overmuch by atheism, Eastern dieties, spiritualism, etc., etc.. This, in no way, negates the fact that other civilisations, other cultures also developed repectable values and ethics.
@137. Moho: – You’re right, I used Wikipedia.
Yet you were too embarrassed to actually cite your copy/pasted irrelevancy, and too dense to realize anyone could figure out where it came from. A dangerous combination. Now that you’ve been outed you’re running away, screaming like a nine-year-old girl. Like I said: pathetic, desperate and, now, pwned. Of course I’m right, troll.
- The courts simply gave up on ruling on HC in the Padilla case.
No. They didn’t. The courts were coerced through judicial activism, political manipulation and hysterical pressure from a partisan Left Wing Media into giving an enemy combatant and prisoner of war a civilian criminal trial. And even with that undue, erroneously conferred benefit, his status as a terrorist was confirmed. It doesn’t GET any clearer than that. Like I said – karma’s a bitch.
If the courts had given up he’d have been left in the brig as an enemy combatant for the duration – which effectively ended with Teh One’s royal proclamation ending the War on Terror. I’m sure BHO hopes the jihadis got the memo. Meanwhile Ibrahim/Padilla/al-Muhajir is going to spend at least another 15 years in prison – all so that his crack legal team could mount a transparent attack on the Bush Administration, using him as a patsy.
Don’t worry though. When Ibrahim/Padilla/al-Muhajir is finally released – what… around 2025? – I’m sure he’ll be fully rehabilitated. I’m sure, with all those mind-numbing years spent bouncing off the walls of his cage, he’ll have completely forgotten how he was used as legal cannon fodder by the left to support their partisan war against the Republican Party. I’m sure the last thing on his convicted terrorist mind will be exacting retribution. The list of al Qaeda contacts he carried has long since been confiscated. So don’t lose any sleep over him. Or unintended consequences. Really.
- But Hamdi relates to Padilla just as it does to any citizen.
LOL!!!! You didn’t cite Hamdi, you boob! This shouldn’t surprise anyone, of course. After all, you seem to think Wikipedia is a reliable “source” for legal analysis. Given that, no one should expect you to know which case you referenced (twice).
Copying and pasting other people’s thoughts because you have none of your own is no way to go through life, sonny.
As for the case you DID reference, Kennedy and his partisan cohort can grind out socially suicidal, partisan decisions based on fantasy until their fingers bleed. Reality has a stubborn way of keeping its own counsel.
- You’ve used nothing …
Heh. Nothing but a single, easily digested line in the U.S. Constitution. It’s an easy document to find.
As for FDR’s racist internment of Japanese Americans, and his subsequent, impeachable crime of perjury in Korematsu, that’s all now public record. Easily verified. The repeal of unconstitutional portions of FDR’s so-called “New Deal” is also public record. Easily verified. And FDR’s craven ploy to stack the Supreme Court with justices sympathetic to his national socialist policies is public record as well. Ditto. All of that was airbrushed from the version of U.S. History you and I were brainwashed with in school, Mo. The difference between us is that I’ve made the effort to overcome it; you haven’t.
1423 goy:
“enemy combatant and prisoner of war” . . . my, my, my . . . the simplest things elude you.
Phranc, people put crosses on the side of the road to commemorate people who died there. Unless of course you’re talking about the 3 large crosses you see on the side of the road sometimes or the godawful huge one outside Westminster, MD. Some people have a need to wear their beliefs on their shirt sleeves, the ones with crosses in their yards are no different than the ones with “Pro-Choice”, PETA, COEXIST, Redskins, Ravens, Nationals, Orioles and other stuff plastered all over their cars. Others don’t, that’s just life. deal with it.
125. turfmonster asked:
Didn’t they shoot the last conservative left in Massachusetts a few years ago?
Peter writes: No, I’m still here.
Goy…Do you actually think I’m going to read that dense, confused mess, after you’ve only proven that you’re going to repeat the same baseless points that have already been dismissed? You’re dumber than I thought. And that’s quite dumb, believe me…
@146. Moho: – Do you actually think I’m going to read that…
No, I don’t. Because you’ve already declared yourself the loser in an argument you thought you were having. And since you clearly didn’t even read the source material you copied and pasted, without actually understanding it or knowing where it came from, the odds are pretty long against you reading anything that threatens your fantasies.
Rather than understand and accurately cite the controlling elements of the topic, it’s much easier for you to falsely proclaim that you’ve dismissed the facts you don’t like. I get that. Hey, “the debate is over” works for Al Gore as an excuse to avoid debate – and he’s getting rich(er) by the minute, duping the world with his AGW scam. So go with it.
Andie:
Nice work.
The Left loves to accuse.
The left loves to revise history to fit their view but even more so to hide the truth about them. These socialists and communists have known for a long time that they could not stand up to the scrutiny of the truth. So while hiding in plain sight they have helped ruin the education, the morals and the sense of community in this country. They have created division among the races and among the lower, upper and middle classes. Now that they have their leaders in charge of all three branches of government they are emboldened to expose some of what they are but we must realize they are still lying and trying to deceive the public about their real goals because the citizens will not stand for their agenda on its own merits.
Everyone should read The 5000 Year Leap by W. Cleon Skousen it even comes with Mp3′s on a disk for your Ipod. A lot of stupid arguments will be settled. I’m sure some have read it already.