We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Friday, February 1. 2008
Surber attempts to inject some rationality into Conservatives. It may be true that Leftists seem to own the Dem Party, but Conservatives do not own the Repub Party. If the Repubs cannot be a "big tent," they will never regain power.
It's a center-right country, not a right-right country and, if you will pardon my pontificating, politics is about compromise - even when it hurts. I'd like to be a purist too, but the reality of other voters, with other views, keeps getting in the way... and it always will.
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
I couldn't agree more. I'm so tired of all the hyper-conservative evangelicals speaking as though they represent the views of all Republicans. They're not fighting in my name.
I'm throwing in with Don Suber and Granddaddy Long Legs.
And I'm gonna beat my little drum one more time on SCOTUS.
Should the Democrats gain 60 Senators, and own the House, and have the Presidency mark this well. There will be NOTHING that can stop them from enlarging the Supreme Court to 15 ( or more) and pushing through young,radical, leftest lawyers into those newly created positions..FOR LIFE ....
The Dems tried it before but didn't have the muscle ..this time the odds makers are saying the Senate and the House wil be Dems.
...and die hard conservatives can do but one thing ..resort to civil war against a honestly elected government that they aided by not voting, or throwing away their vote on a protest candidate.
..eventually their will be no conservatives.
I know. It be down rite embarrassing. At least I don't type "into" itno or ito as often anymores.
Oh Habu, you're so dramatic, Rufus says there's no difference except energy policy which he believes their global warming histerics make for much better policy. We have to be fair and share the POTUS every now and then.
Hmm... I would be willing to bet that more than one member of Maggie's Farm threw his or vote to Bill Clinton in 1992 or 1996 instead of war hero and centrist George H.W. Bush or war hero and centrist Bob Dole. Don't lecture conservatives on the "big tent." And don't equate "conservative" with "evangelical," there are fiscal and national security issues that are equally important.
I don't think conservatives -- social, fiscal and military --- are willing to be to the Republican party what African Americans are to the Democrats -- necessary for victory on Election Day, but dissed and taken for granted the other 364 days of the year.
but if we can't diss and take conservatives for granted then how in the world are the Republicans going to be able to hang on to the moniker of "The Dumb Party?"
Wow. Better wait til the rest of the world starts happy hour before you launch, Sally.
It is not a case of compromise. It is a case of incrementalism. The social conservatives have in many ways become social liberals and cause a huge problem for the fiscal conservatives. The party is tearing itself asunder.
Below is a long comment I made elsewhere that addresses this issue: Evangelicals are basically lazy.
I am of the opinion that the vast majority of "evangelicals" are lazy.
The movement behind Huckabee frightens me. The stated goal of Constitutional Amendments to ban Abortion and define marriage as only hetero/monogamous are abhorrent.
First, on the Constitution. These Amendments (like Prohibition) are essentially religious in nature - given that they are being driven by the aforementioned evangelicals. This, in my mind, leads to a constitutional crisis, because it violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
Further, the Constitution is a document which defines the structure/form/interaction of the national government and constrains or limits its power. Amendments such as the above serve to constrain or limit the freedom/behavior of the people. It is the people who own the Constitution, they cannot be owned by it.
Secondly and to my point about laziness on the part of the evangelicals. These amendments proposed are merely the latest in a shift of responsibilities of Christians to the government. Christians should be directly involved in feeding, clothing, housing the poor - aiding the unwed mother, the addicted, the troubled. In abandoning responsibilities spelled out more clearly in scripture than "the right of privacy" (Roe v. Wade) is in the Constitution, Christians have abandoned their faith in favor of becoming a social club. In point of fact social clubs do more apparent good for society than churches do.
I am not an advocate for churches to be activist. Activism almost always devolves to "somebody (else) ought to do something." It is the action of the individual in individual cases which matter in my view. Any abstraction away from direct involvement misses the point of the Parable of the Good Samaritan.
So, IMHO, the majority of Christians are lazy, when they ask the government (yet again!) to do what they should be doing. They want the world to be a particular way (we all modify our environment to our liking), but they want somebody else to do it for them. This is laziness. Instead of dealing with these questions head-on and personally, they seek to delegate the responsibility to what is possibly the least responsible organization - the government.
“Government is like a baby: An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.”
- Ronald Reagan
I am a Christian. This is not meant to slam Christ or His people. It is that very large group which pretends to be His and yet does not act that way which I addressed here.
It is not the proper job of the national government to establish behavioral norms/rules for the nation. This, via the 10th Amendment, is reserved for the states and the people - who formed and own the federal government.
McCain has made the calculation that he will gain more votes from the center than he will lose from the right. The polls are proving him right. He beats HRC in the polls even with conservatives threatening to sit out the election. So quit brow beating us. You have nothing to worry about.
Well, thanks for the link.
Note too that WSJ just came this close from endorsing McCain:
D - I disagree. Right now we get to fight over who represents our party. Then, when that fight is settled, we unite and look past the primary.
Personally, I was very disappointed in the choices other than Thompson - and he ran a terrible campaign.
I will vote for McCain if he's on the ballot in November. I hope his petty egotism and meanness does not sink the party.
Dear NJ Soldier: This was the Barrister's comment ..."It's a center-right country, not a right-right country and, if you will pardon my pontificating, politics is about compromise - even when it hurts. I'd like to be a purist too, but the reality of other voters, with other views, keeps getting in the way... and it always will."
That sounds to me rather like a call to unite under the guise of "compromise" before the primary campaign has run its course.
It is clearly time for the definitive answer.
What Aussie PM John Howard told his Nation
My sentiments also.
America Needs A Leader Like This!
Prime Minister John Howard - Australia
Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told on Wednesday to get out of Australia , as the government targeted radicals in a bid to head off potential terror attacks.
Separately, Howard angered some Australian Muslims on Wednesday by saying he supported spy agencies monitoring the nation's mosques. Quote: 'IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT. Take It Or Leave It. I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Bali , we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Australians.'
'This culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom'
'We speak mainly ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society . Learn the language!'
'Most Australians believe in God. This is not some Christian, right wing, political push, but a fact, because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture.'
'We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why. All we ask is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us.'
'This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this. But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great Australian freedom,
'THE RIGHT TO LEAVE'.'
'If you aren't happy here then LEAVE. We didn't force you to come here. You asked to be here. So accept the country YOU accepted.'
BD, Looks like there's some validity to it but ....
My sister didn't know, but a search shows the remarks were repeated on numerous blogs (I do not consider them a source) but also it appears that the Aussie papers picked up and reported the remarks.
On some you have to scroll down a bit.
Apparently Urban Legends confirmed it also but are they a source? I'm not sure.
http://www.danbyrnes.com.au/lostworlds/timeline/year2006.htm WED 5 Oct 2005
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/live-here-be-australian/2006/02/24/1140670269194.html .....scroll down
BD..sent to me in an email by my sister..I'll inquire. It certainly sounds like Mr. Howard but we do need a source or two.
for certain -- it was widely reported on the international news services-- PM Howard's foreign minister Alexander Downer said something very similiar, a year or two ago.
Little Scotty Wiggins.
I just read Scott Wiggin reply to his question about my resume, which he countred with his.....Scott, if you're out there and you spend 20 years in the Corps, how is it you only made Major?
Very telling...allow me to add that in your entire career you were surrounded by support, probably never in the field alone, behind enemy lines and having to live by your talent ,creativity, improvisation and adaptation.
I didn't see you mention any combat experience...a REMF no doubt.
.....but only a Major after 20 years...they forced you out I know the drill on that. somewhere you couldn't or didn't hack it.
PS . I'm not a gramps.
Jeezis K. Rist, habu -- easy, son -- you'll burn out before November --
Well really... it's kind of funny... watching a couple of officers in a pissing contest. Both of them dragging down the Corps with their focus on individual merit. Overlooking entirely the fact that none of their accomplishments would have been possible without the efforts of the most slick sleeved of Private's.
Such Private... as it turns out, who has just as much say in the running of this country as the most decorated officer.
Funny how that works out... here in America. One vote per person.
i wish i could find Robert E. Lee's quote on the private soldier. Something to the effect that his amateur voluntary effort was the noblest thing on the battlefield, as the officers were professionals doing their career jobs (he was a hair more eloquent, IIRC).
Still can't find it -- but did find this rather astonishing tribute to Lee & Jackson.
Hey guys, not to worry. It's in my blood. Scotty, as you may recall challenged my bona fides to offer an opinion in this forum, asking me what exactly had I done...his manner was aggressive and condescending.
We'll, I filled him in and a day or so later he remarks that I'm a legend in my own mind and then gave me his resume. As Marine Corps officer resumes go it's not impressive.
But lawd knows if there is one component in my personality that is a dominant one it's aggression, especially when insulted or attacked. It could easily be said I give better than I take, which is no doubt true. In the Marine Corps that influenced my life, the WWII vets and then my own Vietnam experience in the Corps and CIA aggression was the key. If you were a non hacker you were hounded out of the Corps..
Things in the Corps have changed drastically since those days. Charm school, diplomacy etc. Yeah Marines are still the best but their mission isn't always to kill the enemy , it might be to dig a new latrine for the village...
Now if Scotty boy hadn't been so disrespectful it would have all ended, but he ended with a barb, and I don't take getting poked by anybody without poking back. So the only way I can return the gig is to point out Scotty boys career for what it was..at best mediocre.
But guys don't worry. Scotty will be fine and so will I.
BTW .. you guys should know that Marines get in fights with other Marines all the time. But if a threat should show up, whoa to that enemy for our full attention would quickly turn to eliminating that threat. The back to the fighting.
No harm no foul. Luther's got it down right ..a pissing contest.
That was right gentlemanly, habu. Now don't you feel better?
Habu I didn't intend to be quite as harsh as my words came out sounding... as you've said... your business. But thanks for the words. Though yes... I could have written a few of them myself when it comes to jarheads. As I said, just kind of funny.
man o man -- look at this -- follow it back to main page -- it's the Army of Northern Virginia analyzed --
If John Howard wasn't such a big gun-grabber, I'd be a bigger fan. Oh, wait, I'm being a purist.
We need the purists. We need the centrists, and lawd help me we need the RINOS too......you can already see him turning right...I saw where Nancy Reagan is supporting him but won't break decorum and do it formally.
Perhaps the gravitational pull of the purists will get him in the correct orbit once we get him in the Oval Office..keep on keep'n on.
BTW I agree with you. Howard of course is not PM any more but I'm sure their gun laws will remain way too strict for our sentiments...too damn bad to cause it and New Zealand are top on my list for immigration if they only had less restrictive gunlaws...for now I'll settle for MontanaThey like to say up there "It's the last best place" ..but I hear Idaho is great too.
Buddy, damn interesting looking links you've found there. But it is late... I'll come back tomorrow and check them out, for sure.
that second one is an entire book online -- from 1934 -- analyzing Lee's battles in detail -- with footnotes -- not a quick read but sure something to save.