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
Wednesday, April 29. 2009
It may be hard to believe, but that is what we're up against, friends. There are Americans who have no clue about why this nation exists.
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
I have to agree with Sanchez's question - what does that mean? I agree with DeMint's underlying philosophy, but I don't think he explained it well at all.
Sanchez doesn't crasp the reality that Spector never was a regular Republican but has always been a Democrat.
Let's keep squeezing anyone who hankers to hang with the Muhammadan in the Whitehouse out of the Republican party, including the conservatives who voted for him to teach America a lesson.
It shouldn't be any surprise that a lot of people are now just confused by the very concept of freedom. There are consequences to the consistent degradation of language and discourse, not to mention education. A lot of people are following a siren song of security, and forgetting anything they ever used to know about why freedom was important to them.
I don't understand why any Republican would consider the loss of Anal Spincter, or whatever the hell his name is, to be a negative. Hammer away at the truth, that the guy was going to get creamed in the Republican primary and his only chance to keep his seat was to switch parties. They won't get any help from the MSM but Pennslyvania Republicans have a real chance to hammer the Senator for running like the sissy that he is. And he's been a wishy washy Republican at best. Give Democrats their super majority and the damage they do with it will bite them next election.
I sort of cringe when either traditional Democrats or Republicans talk about freedom. One group wants to control the economy but provide liberty in other aspects of life. The other wants to create laws to control your morality according to their own standard but free the economy Neither of these stances is "freedom" in my book.
DeMint gave a poor answer to a good question. In fact, it was a perfect example of why conservatives/republicans sound like simpletons every now and then. They have to make their message clear, but before they manage to do that, they've all got to get the message straight.
"A lot of people are following a siren song of security, and forgetting anything they ever used to know about why freedom was important to them."
Exactly. With the exception of the truly stupid, people are floundering around looking for something to hold on to. Both sides of our political structure have left chaos in its wake with the corruption and disregard for what makes a nation great - unity and purpose with liberty leading the way.
Spork- Understand the concept of traditional federalism versus centralization and it will begin to make sense to you. The people should decide the issues of morality and maintaining the culture at the state and local level rather than at the level of the absolutists in DC. It's a subtle but extremely important issue. The governmnet doesn't provide your liberty, it's function is to protect fundamental rights rather than conjuring up new ones without any basis in tradition, culture or law.
Err... yeah, sort of what I was saying actually... except I take exception to even a state or local government making this type of law.
The concept is "individual rights" -- and no law should violate it. Doing so violates freedom. Period. And I'd prefer the state/local governments make no laws appealing to tradition or culture as well.
Freedom isn't centralism v. federalism. Freedom is individualism v. collectivism -- whether the collective is the state, the fed or the church.
Personal freedom comes with responsibility.
The framers of the Constitution understood the models of government far better than virtually anyone in history. Individualism without responsibility is anarchy.
You are your state or local government. If you don't like it and can't change it, move. What kind of 'law' are you talking about?
I just read your comment regarding the 'collective, whether the feds, the state or the church'. With all due respect, the church in America has no power of coercion unlike the state. You are not forced to obey a church only the government. There are voluntary organizations and the government. It doesn't hurt to know the difference.
When I say "the church" I generally am referring to places other than the USA where there are actually state churches. However, if the church votes as a unit to deny individual rights, then, they have a way to coerce. Examples? sure. They vary from "annoying" to "just stupid": blue laws, local liquor laws that require 45 minute trips to buy a 6-pack, denial of gays to enter normal contract law, attempts to hijack what goes on inside a chick's uterus.
Can I move? Sure. But as a matter of principle, individual rights should not be something that can be voted away by a majority. History provides many extreme examples where dictatorships were established through democratic vote.
Just a reference back to the original article: "There are Americans who have no clue about why this nation exists."
Realize that the entire foundation of this nation was "individual rights". And I have to agree that very few Americans have a clue that this and this alone is what made us "different." And yes, the framers of the Constitution fully understood that and wrote extensively about it.
How about the freedom to have your blue chip GM bonds dealt with by a proper bankrupcy court following the established rule of law?