Intolerance

[BigJon@Work]

I can see yours now. Must have been a temporary glitch on the host before, because I cut and pasted the link from your post to the browaser bar and it still wouldn't show.

[Steelman]

I wish there was a study about this, but then again it wouldn’t serve certain agendas to do so. I’ll be willing to bet when it comes to intolerance, that in fact White Christians (Catholics) for that matter…a common target of the Left and many others are MORE Tolerant, more accepting, offer more assistance and do more for local communities than any other racial background or religion. (Talking per Capita here) I think in fact its many minority groups who are least tolerant, least excepting of new ideas and least willing to consider the above mentioned thought processes. The problem is that White Christians are least likely to be combative, in your face or public about their defense.. so it goes unchecked. Obama has answers for everything…he’s supposed to be the prince of unity (baring his wife, pastor or the fact he thinks us “Typical Whites” are always Angry and Bitter.) …… ouch.

[Serenity]

Just say NO to intolerance. Be aware of it and when you feel it in you, try to extract it from its root.

[Serenity[bot]]

"Conservative" used to mean that the Constitution was held in high regard and that anything that went contrary to it would require an amendment to the Constitution. "Liberal" used to mean that a loose reading of the Constitution was sufficient, and as long as no blatant offense was made, it was OK.

Nowadays, it seems as though "Conservative" is understood to mean old time values from a time that never was. Unfortunately, they also feel that those imaginary values should be enforced against those who feel liberty is their right.

KNOXVILLE, Tenn. - An out-of-work truck driver accused of opening fire at a Unitarian church, killing two people, left behind a note suggesting that he targeted the congregation out of hatred for its liberal policies, including its acceptance of gays, authorities said Monday.
ADVERTISEMENT

A four-page letter found in Jim D. Adkisson's small SUV indicated he intentionally targeted the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church because, the police chief said, "he hated the liberal movement" and was upset with "liberals in general as well as gays."

by Shapley on Mon Jul 28, 2008 4:31 pm
Fast forward to a recent article linked, I believe, by Haggis, entitled No Country For Young Men, which dealt with the effects of China's birth control efforts. According to that article, the population of Chinese youth is shifting unhealtily towards being an all-male group (although, admittedly, it is far from being there).

Now, being a guy who tries to see the forest, instead of a bunch of trees, I saw a connection between all of these shards of information. If China continues on its' current track of gender manipulation, and my theory (which admittedly is adapted from Michael Crichton) is correct, we can expect to see Chinese boys spontaneously becoming girls in order to ensure survivability of the species.....

by Shapley on Mon Apr 28, 2008 8:49 am

I find many of society's standards to be substandard. I am cynical about many of society's accepted authority figures. I would rather depend on myself rather than others to make decisions concerning myself. I have rejected most of the icons my parents have looked toward for guidance.



I call that 'becoming a conservative'. Set your own standards, don't limit yourself to those set by others.

Depend on yourself, by all means. Make your own way in the world. If you fail, accept that you failed, and resolve to do better the next time. Accept that failure happens, but accept that you can rise above failure. Don't believe that you failed because 'they' don't want you to succeed.

I really don't put a lot of stock in 'role models'. You can learn as much from failures as from successes, and you'll find the measure of the man is how he deals with failure, not how he deals with success. In the end, however, we're all human. If you place one person on a pedastal, you'll find that it hurts much harder when they fall from it. There's nothing wrong with admiring success, but what should really be admired is effort.

V/R
Shapley

[Shapley]

I find many of society's standards to be substandard. I am cynical about many of society's accepted authority figures. I would rather depend on myself rather than others to make decisions concerning myself. I have rejected most of the icons my parents have looked toward for guidance.

That part was yours, not mine.

There are always radicals in every group. The church shooter was not a conservative, though he may have considered himself one.

When President Kennedy was shot, there was a rush to blame conservatives. When the shooter turned out to be a communist sympathizer, the blame was shifted to the firearm he used. Gun control measures followed in 1964 and again in 1968.

V/R
Shapley

[Serenity]

I find many of society's standards to be substandard. I am cynical about many of society's accepted authority figures. I would rather depend on myself rather than others to make decisions concerning myself. I have rejected most of the icons my parents have looked toward for guidance.

That part was yours, not mine.

Right...the next part is yours: "I call that becoming a conservative".

There are always radicals in every group. The church shooter was not a conservative, though he may have considered himself one.

................Are you a conservative until you take radical action?

When President Kennedy was shot, there was a rush to blame conservatives. When the shooter turned out to be a communist sympathizer, the blame was shifted to the firearm he used. Gun control measures followed in 1964 and again in 1968.

V/R
Shapley

So the beliefs of the person who targeted and shot at Kennedy were addressed with 1964 & 1968 gun control measures? Tape up the wounds but ignore the real cause of what triggered the action.

[Shapley]

So the beliefs of the person who targeted and shot at Kennedy were addressed with 1964 & 1968 gun control measures? Tape up the wounds but ignore the real cause of what triggered the action.

That is the only 'remedy' I am aware of.

[Shapley]

I believe my view on indivdualism is not markedly different from the standard thinking of conservatives. The Constitution, by and large, is a document dedicated to the freedom of the individual. It limits governmental power so that the individual States and the Individual citizens can chart their own course.

The thing that distinguishes the 'conservative' from the 'libetarian' is really in the interpetation of those limitations. To me, libertarians and conservatives should find common ground, but they aren't likely to as long as the spokesmen for the libertarian movement continue to be the 'legalize marijuana' crowd.

Perhaps the biggest difference between libertarians and conservatives is in the view of our military role. True libertarians support the idea that we can only raise armies during time of war, and that the existence of a standing army since the abolition of the War Department, which was replaced with the Department of Defense in 1948, is unconstitutional. Conservatives have accepted this breach of Constitutional verbage as a necessity of circumstances. Conservatives also support the use of force overseas to protect American interests, whereas the true libertarian does not, with the exception of the use of naval forces to protect our trade interests, and in the case of declared war.

The only politician I know of who comes close to the definition of a 'true libertarian' is Ron Paul.

I believe we can exert our influence overseas, militarily and otherwise, within the constitutional framework.

Here on the B.com BB, Barlfe is about as libertarian as they get. I like to think I'm a good conservative, and I believe that Haggis also represents the conservative viewpoint quite well. Even so, you will note that Haggis and I sometimes disagree, as do other conservative-leaning posters here (Bigjon, for example). If you've read the exchanges between Barfle and myself regarding the Presidents authorization of force in Iraq, you will notice that we have a disagreement on the ability of the Congress to award their own power through proxy, in this case the power of the Congress to allow the President to declare war. Congressmen and Senators share proxy power among themselves frequently, giving one Senator or Congressman the authority to cast their vote. Some would argue that this violates the 'one man, one vote' rule, but I do not believe this to be the case. Similarly, I believe the Congress can give Proxy to another qualified body to declare war. They have voted to go to war, conditionally, and the qualified person (in this case the President) determines the conditions under which we do so.

V/R
Shapley

[Shapley]

House of Repersentatives Poised To Apologize For Slavery, Jim Crow.

I don't really see the point in the current house of Representatives, elected over 140 years after slavery was abolished, apologizing for the actions of past legislators.

Jim Crow laws, however, were State laws. What possible basis does the Federal House of Representatives have for apologizing for the decisions of the various States?

I think this apologizing business is rather meaningless. An apology made by anyone other the person or persons commiting the offense is really worthless, IMHO.

[barfle]

The thing that distinguishes the 'conservative' from the 'libetarian' is really in the interpetation of those limitations. To me, libertarians and conservatives should find common ground, but they aren't likely to as long as the spokesmen for the libertarian movement continue to be the 'legalize marijuana' crowd.

Why? Where does the Constitution make any reference to individuals chosing to partake of intoxicants?

Perhaps the biggest difference between libertarians and conservatives is in the view of our military role. True libertarians support the idea that we can only raise armies during time of war, and that the existence of a standing army since the abolition of the War Department, which was replaced with the Department of Defense in 1948, is unconstitutional. Conservatives have accepted this breach of Constitutional verbage as a necessity of circumstances. Conservatives also support the use of force overseas to protect American interests, whereas the true libertarian does not, with the exception of the use of naval forces to protect our trade interests, and in the case of declared war.

In that case, you're not really fitting your own definition of "conservative," and you're making an extrapolation of what a libertarian believes about the military. Libertarianism is primarily concerned with individual liberties being more valuable than priveliges usurped from individuals by a collective society. If one chooses to join a military organization, libertarians really don't care, unless that military organization is used to usurp the powers of the individual.

The only politician I know of who comes close to the definition of a 'true libertarian' is Ron Paul.

To my mind, he comes closest of living politicians with a modicum of success, but Barry Goldwater was closer.

I believe we can exert our influence overseas, militarily and otherwise, within the constitutional framework.

So do I. The Constitution authorizes a standing Navy, as well as authorizing various treaties and alliances.

Here on the B.com BB, Barlfe is about as libertarian as they get.

Thank you.

I like to think I'm a good conservative, and I believe that Haggis also represents the conservative viewpoint quite well. Even so, you will note that Haggis and I sometimes disagree, as do other conservative-leaning posters here (Bigjon, for example). If you've read the exchanges between Barfle and myself regarding the Presidents authorization of force in Iraq, you will notice that we have a disagreement on the ability of the Congress to award their own power through proxy, in this case the power of the Congress to allow the President to declare war. Congressmen and Senators share proxy power among themselves frequently, giving one Senator or Congressman the authority to cast their vote. Some would argue that this violates the 'one man, one vote' rule, but I do not believe this to be the case. Similarly, I believe the Congress can give Proxy to another qualified body to declare war. They have voted to go to war, conditionally, and the qualified person (in this case the President) determines the conditions under which we do so.

The Constitution gives the Congress the ability to make their own rules, as long as they don't violate the Constitution. When it comes to proxies, I don't know of any prohibitions against them, although the Constitution is explicit as to who can declare war.

[Serenity]

Thanks Shap, that was a well thought post.

I also believe in individualism and consider myself more libertarian than conservative. I prefer not to be fighting wars overseas, which we eternally seem to be throughout our history. Going to war seems like a failure of negotiation and having a military presence anywhere makes others nervous.

I believe the person that fired on the Unitarian church considered himself conservative more in a religious rather than political sense. The labels are not important. It's unnerving to see headlines about people loosing their cool and doing unspeakable things. There is a disconnect between their beliefs and values and their experience of reality, to the point that they lose control of their emotions and decide to act against the rules. I wonder what we can do, as individuals and as groups, to defuse or alleviate the mental tug-of-war these people are having and not showing it until it's too late and we have to deal with the aftermath? Work on the cause of the problem, not the effects of the problem.

[Shapley]

Why? Where does the Constitution make any reference to individuals chosing to partake of intoxicants?

It doesn't. It does, however, allow the government to regulate 'commerce'. In the 'old days', that is how drug laws were approached: the government went after suppliers. As recently as the '70s, there was an legally accepted limit on how much you could possess, the argument being that that was the largest amount one woud be allowed for personal consumption, anything over that amount suggest that you were a distributor.

Unfortunately, it was Ronaldus Maximus that enacted the 'zero tolerance' laws that changed that. I do not and have not supported those laws, but I had no problem with the 'commerce' approach of old. It is also unfortunate that the Supreme Court has accepted the concept that everything is somehow acquired through 'commerce', and thus that clause allows the government to regulate everything.

In that case, you're not really fitting your own definition of "conservative," and you're making an extrapolation of what a libertarian believes about the military. Libertarianism is primarily concerned with individual liberties being more valuable than priveliges usurped from individuals by a collective society. If one chooses to join a military organization, libertarians really don't care, unless that military organization is used to usurp the powers of the individual.

I refer to libertarian in the sense that it exists as a political party, which deals with the interpretation and implementation of the Constitution. As a political party, the issue of what one chooses to do with ones' own life is immaterial. They do, however, favour an all-volunteer military, making Richard Nixon and Ronaldus Maximus libertarians in some sense....

To my mind, he comes closest of living politicians with a modicum of success, but Barry Goldwater was closer.

Perhaps, but I had thought that Goldwater defined himself as 'conservative', and that some of his views, such as the military one, were significantly opposed to the libertarian viewpoint.

So do I. The Constitution authorizes a standing Navy, as well as authorizing various treaties and alliances.

Exactly my point. The Marines are part of the Navy, allowing us to have a ready attack force, which would eliminate the need for the standing army. The National Guard (under direction of the States), properly trained and equipped, could provide the manpower for a quickly raised army when needed, after the Marines had landed. Treaties can allow for the maintenance of troops on foreign soil.

The Air Force, whose existence could not have been forseen by the founders, could operate as an extension of the Navy, or could be amended into the Constitution.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

The Constitution gives the Congress the ability to make their own rules, as long as they don't violate the Constitution. When it comes to proxies, I don't know of any prohibitions against them, although the Constitution is explicit as to who can declare war.

Which is what I beleive they did, conditionally.

[jamiebk]

House of Repersentatives Poised To Apologize For Slavery, Jim Crow.

I don't really see the point in the current house of Representatives, elected over 140 years after slavery was abolished, apologizing for the actions of past legislators.

Jim Crow laws, however, were State laws. What possible basis does the Federal House of Representatives have for apologizing for the decisions of the various States?

I think this apologizing business is rather meaningless. An apology made by anyone other the person or persons commiting the offense is really worthless, IMHO.

Don't get me started on how I feel about reparations.....

[barfle]

Why? Where does the Constitution make any reference to individuals chosing to partake of intoxicants?

It doesn't. It does, however, allow the government to regulate 'commerce'.

Interstate commerce. Or more preciesly "among the several states." Nothing about growing your own, or commerce within a single state.

It is also unfortunate that the Supreme Court has accepted the concept that everything is somehow acquired through 'commerce', and thus that clause allows the government to regulate everything.

I agree.

In that case, you're not really fitting your own definition of "conservative," and you're making an extrapolation of what a libertarian believes about the military. Libertarianism is primarily concerned with individual liberties being more valuable than priveliges usurped from individuals by a collective society. If one chooses to join a military organization, libertarians really don't care, unless that military organization is used to usurp the powers of the individual.

I refer to libertarian in the sense that it exists as a political party, which deals with the interpretation and implementation of the Constitution. As a political party, the issue of what one chooses to do with ones' own life is immaterial. They do, however, favour an all-volunteer military, making Richard Nixon and Ronaldus Maximus libertarians in some sense....

In that case, capitalize the "L." It makes it clearer that you're referring to an organization instead of a philosophy. However, the LP isn't necessarily a Constitutionalist party. While they bemoan the encroachment of the government on civil liberties, they use the Constitution as a means to reducing that. It won't work as a means to eliminating that, unless it was seriously amended.

To my mind, he comes closest of living politicians with a modicum of success, but Barry Goldwater was closer.

Perhaps, but I had thought that Goldwater defined himself as 'conservative', and that some of his views, such as the military one, were significantly opposed to the libertarian viewpoint.

Indeed, he did. But if you examine his views, you will find that they fit the modern description of "libertarian" more than the modern description of "conservative." We've had this conversation before, remember?

So do I. The Constitution authorizes a standing Navy, as well as authorizing various treaties and alliances.

Exactly my point. The Marines are part of the Navy, allowing us to have a ready attack force, which would eliminate the need for the standing army. The National Guard (under direction of the States), properly trained and equipped, could provide the manpower for a quickly raised army when needed, after the Marines had landed. Treaties can allow for the maintenance of troops on foreign soil.

The Air Force, whose existence could not have been forseen by the founders, could operate as an extension of the Navy, or could be amended into the Constitution.

I agree. The Navy has the legal ability to exist in peacetime, and the physical ability to wage any type of war we can figure out. The standing excuse for a standing Army was the cold war, now it's the "war on terrorism." Both are smokescreens.

The Constitution gives the Congress the ability to make their own rules, as long as they don't violate the Constitution. When it comes to proxies, I don't know of any prohibitions against them, although the Constitution is explicit as to who can declare war.

Which is what I beleive they did, conditionally.

Do you believe they conditionally violated the Constitution? Because I don't see it as conditional. But then, I read the Constitution pretty narrowly.

[Shapley]

Do you believe they conditionally violated the Constitution? Because I don't see it as conditional. But then, I read the Constitution pretty narrowly.

No. I believe they have the authority to do it they way they did. I believe the war in Vietnam was waged under a similar lack of declaration. I'm not old enough to know if the war in Korea was, but I seem to recall it was a 'police action' waged as a U.N action, rather than a declared U.S. War.

[Haggis@wk]

The Air Force, whose existence could not have been forseen by the founders, could operate as an extension of the Navy, or could be amended into the Constitution.

The Air Force has always been considered an offshoot of the U.S. Army which is why, legally, Posse Comitatus applies to the regular/reserve Army and the Air Force. It doesn't apply to the Navy or the USMC.

[Haggis@wk]

The standing excuse for a standing Army was the cold war, now it's the "war on terrorism." Both are smokescreens.

In your opinion should we disband the Army and the USAF?

[Shapley]

The Air Force has always been considered an offshoot of the U.S. Army which is why, legally, Posse Comitatus applies to the regular/reserve Army and the Air Force. It doesn't apply to the Navy or the USMC.

True, because the Air Force was created from the old Army Air Corps. The Navy has its' own aviation wing, as do the Marines.

However, in view of the constitutional restriction on maintaining an Army, some provision would have to be created to maintain a peacetime Air Force if we follow the Constitution to the letter.

[barfle]

In your opinion should we disband the Army and the USAF?

As they are presently structured, I don't see the Constitutional provision for them. That being said, it WOULD be Constitutional if they were reorgainzed under the Navy.

The only real difference I see it making would be lip-service respect to the Constitution, which would be better than what it's been getting lately.

[Haggis@wk]

In your opinion should we disband the Army and the USAF?

As they are presently structured, I don't see the Constitutional provision for them. That being said, it WOULD be Constitutional if they were reorgainzed under the Navy.

The only real difference I see it making would be lip-service respect to the Constitution, which would be better than what it's been getting lately.

I don't think they could be reorganized under the navy, that would be constitutional smoke and mirrors. A non-standing Army is specifically allowed for now, but your argument is no less valid than that of the people who believe income tax a violation of the constitution.

Personally, I think the “lip service” began when the 17th Amendment was passed. I think it is the most egregious assault on the Constitution since 1787 and every violation since then can be directly tracked to the 17th.

I despair for the chances of my children’s future. You and I will probably both die shaking our heads in disbelief.