Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

dienekes96 wrote:Seb, the Dems would LOVE to own the House, the Senate and the White House. They absolutely want that (as did and do the Republicans). It's terrible for my government though, as the Republicans have shown. Neither party is particularly mature and capable of operating without a healthy pushback. Owning both legislative houses and the executive branch simply means they can push their policy without having to defend it. That sucked for the Republicans, and I think it will suck for the Dems.

Well, yeah, of course they'd love to win everything, and likely will.

But deep down I don't think they've ever really come out of opposition mode. They've let the minority Republicans dominate the senate and used Bush as an excuse to put through a lot of legislation. If they take all three houses they'll have to come out of that and move into actually governing. You mention later on that the Democrats are basically the not Republican party. You're right, and that's enough for a party to be relevant and for it to gain votes while it's in the minority, once it is actually in a position to govern it needs some ideas of its own.

The leadership in the House (Nancy Pelosi) and Senate (Harry Reid) absolutely SUCKED these past two weeks during this crisis. Just woeful, confused, and stuck in campaign mode. Even my liberal leaning friends will gladly agree with me on that.

I think Reid's been alright, on the whole. I don't think anyone out there is all that impressed with Pelosi.

I would love something that forces the Republican Party to figure out what it is and what it should be. The Dems don't know either, but they've been more a collection of social interests for years, and they have figured out is that they are NOT conservatives. That's hardly a ringing endorsement. Remember, the Dems aren't really winning (though I do think Obama is) - in 2006, they won both Houses by NOT being Republicans. That will only take them so far. Hopefully, Obama can help guide them further. Time will tell.

The Dems don't know either, but their mess of conflicting interests is less horrible (right now) and they're not about to take the caning the the Republicans are about to take (going from holding all three offices in 2006 to none in 2008). It's likely several years down the track that the Democrats will be just as corrupt as the current Republicans and about to suffer the same electoral result, and I'll likely be cheering it on.

In the UK we have a political saying that the USA has two different political parties; the Republicans, who are rather like our Conservative party, and the Democrats, who are rather like our Conservative party.

Kilkrazy wrote:In the UK we have a political saying that the USA has two different political parties; the Republicans, who are rather like our Conservative party, and the Democrats, who are rather like our Conservative party.

What I want to know is what is "our" BNP.

Kilkrazy wrote:In the UK we have a political saying that the USA has two different political parties; the Republicans, who are rather like our Conservative party, and the Democrats, who are rather like our Conservative party.

Hahaha. Thanks for sharing that.

@Grignard - your BNP is the KKK. Do you really fancy them running the country?

As for the election, I hope Obama wins because for my money the only thing preventing the collapse of western civilisation is the seperation of church and state.

The dems are far more likely to keep this and run a secular government than the the GOP. I can't stand a group of people that says they want smaller government, but wants government to regulate the personal morals of everyone in the country. Governments should be there to protect the freedom and security of their citzens, nothing else! [/rant]

Too bad the Democrats have no problem regulating private morals either. Its not like there's really a difference between the two parties.

Any particular examples, JF? There is a clear pattern of conservative religious groups directly supporting candidates who pander to their particular social agendas, in violation of the principle of church/state separation, often in direct violation of IRS code. IME the politicians actively courting those votes are predominantly Republican.

This election, there has been an organized movement to campaign from the pulpit for McCain; they know they're breaking the law, and they don't care. I don't care who you are, but no religious entity has any business using that position to score political points.

http://us-elections.suite101.com/article.cfm/pastors_in_trouble_over_churchstate_separation

Gotta love people who hold themselves to be moral exemplars while pulling this crap.

The IRS really needs to get tougher on this.

And it's not just this election. It's pretty much been since Reagan.

But this time, they're doing it openly. There have been news spots on them and their overarching organization that is coordinating it.

Mannahnin wrote:Any particular examples, JF? There is a clear pattern of conservative religious groups directly supporting candidates who pander to their particular social agendas, in violation of the principle of church/state separation, often in direct violation of IRS code. IME the politicians actively courting those votes are predominantly Republican.

Speech codes on campus, Obama's legal team sending letters to state AG's to get them to review political advertisements in direct violation of the history of free speech, states using state's right language to force religious wack jobs to to provide work for same sex couples. Wachignton DC attempting to circumvent SCOTUS's rulings on the 2nd Amendment. Recent SCOTUS rulings defeating stare decisis on eminent domain allowing states/cities to seize property without need for public interest. I'm not defending the Republicans on this. Both sides do it, they just attack different areas. They both are wont to attack my (and your) freedoms.

lord_sutekh wrote:This election, there has been an organized movement to campaign from the pulpit for McCain; they know they're breaking the law, and they don't care. I don't care who you are, but no religious entity has any business using that position to score political points.

Thats a time honored tradition in Black churches. Its only against the law if you think the IRS should be taxing churches. I'm ok with the IRS taxing churches, but they have the right to say what they want, and espouse whatever candidate or position they want to espouse.

But then Unions and everyone have to be taxed as well. Again I'm ok with that.

Hang on, exactly which of those are an attempt to legislate private morality, which was what Chimera_Calvin was talking about?

The point is that churches are breaking the law when they choose to avail themselves of the tax breaks and then break the restrictions that go along with them, such as not speaking for or against any particular candidate/s. While some "black churches" have been found in violation of it, do you have any particular data to support it being a "time honored tradition"?

Both parties are attempting to impugn my rights, to tel me what I can or cannot do.

But that's changing the subject. Chimera_Calvin said his big concern is that one particular party is going to damage the Wall of Separation. Then you said the Democrats do the same thing.

Mannahnin wrote:Hang on, exactly which of those are an attempt to legislate private morality, which was what Chimera_Calvin was talking about?

The point is that churches are breaking the law when they choose to avail themselves of the tax breaks and then break the restrictions that go along with them, such as not speaking for or against any particular candidate/s. While some "black churches" have been found in violation of it, do you have any particular data to support it being a "time honored tradition"?

Point is, both sides have done it for a long time and it's near impossible to regulate.

For reasons I really, really don't understand (maybe to provoke a response and heighten the siege mentality of the conservative right?), a couple of right wing churches have decided in this campaign to do it openly. It doesn't really change the fact that both sides have done it for a long time and there seems to be neither the will nor the understanding of how to stop it.


But yeah, I don't really know what jfrazell is going on about when he talks about the Dems being a moralistic as the Republicans. You could make some kind of argument about everything being a moral action or something, but it'd be disingenuous. Point is, one party makes a regular habit of trying to frame the political debate in terms of Christian values, and lobbies very heavily on the grounds of government knowing what our morals should be.

I see JF's point,m and I'll explain. When you think of someone being overly PC, is that a progressive or a conservative bent? Progressive. It's about telling me what is OK for me to THINK. You know what? I am allowed, by the greatest document in the history of the world, to be sexist, racist, homophobic, anti-semitic, atheist, fundamentalist, etc. The current incarnation of the Democrats does not like that. Because those things are bad, people shouldn't be allowed to SPEAK them. It's the fundamental problem with the Democratic Party that prevents me, a social liberal, from buying in (that and their complete lack of a spine or understanding of the military...but mostly that).

It's not as bad as some of the fringe right, because the Dems don't push those laws directly. They do so indirectly. Like local campaign material telling me that abortion is a Constitutionally-protected right. When it isn't. Neither is privacy.

Long story short, both parties are full of scum-sucking moralists. The Dems are just hypocritical about it.

What Dieneke96 said. Sorry I'm a bit busy watching the "Panic of '08" in real time.

But the enforcement of PC is not a campaign promise the Dems make to anyone. Political Correctness is a joke; excessive defensiveness about people being offensive. Progressivism is about securing equal opportunity.

Privacy as a Constitutionally-protected right is an inferred concept, not an explicit one, sure. It’s based in part on the 9th Amendment, but also on the various rights having to do with privacy which are explicitly called out by other Amendments (1st, 3rd, 4th,14th). Having grown up and lived most of my life in New Hampshire, where our attitude towards freedom is classically summed up as “Do whatever you want, as long as you don’t do it in the middle of the road and scare the horses” I think of privacy as a fundamental right, and certainly one our founders intended to be held sacred.

IMO there is a big difference between building on a Constitutional concept the SCOTUS has made clear in several big court cases (Meyer v. Nebraska, Griswold v. Connecticut, Stanley v. Georgia, and Roe v. Wade, for example), and making a party-wide habit of using the pulpit into a tool of political campaigns, in direct contravention of Jefferson and Madison’s clear intentions about separation of Church and State.

That said, if you actually believe the Dems to be guilty of what Chimera_Calvin expressed fear of the Repubs doing, please furnish any actual examples you have of Democrats trying to get religious teachings or practices turned into law.

Mannahnin wrote:But the enforcement of PC is not a campaign promise the Dems make to anyone. Political Correctness is a joke; excessive defensiveness about people being offensive. Progressivism is about securing equal opportunity.

No, it isn't. Affirmative action isn't about being equal. Neither is NOW. It's about getting the most you can to make up for injustice. Enforcement of PC is a promise the Dems make to everyone. It's whay the party is a collection of individual interests. And now, so is the Republican Party, but the Dems have been that way for forty years. It's about the PERCEPTION of equal opportunity. In effect, I have to trust the government and those who make the laws to determine where the balance should be. That's not equal opportunity...that is "managed" opportunity.

Mannahnin wrote:Privacy as a Constitutionally-protected right is an inferred concept, not an explicit one, sure. It’s based in part on the 9th Amendment, but also on the various rights having to do with privacy which are explicitly called out by other Amendments (1st, 3rd, 4th,14th). Having grown up and lived most of my life in New Hampshire, where our attitude towards freedom is classically summed up as “Do whatever you want, as long as you don’t do it in the middle of the road and scare the horses” I think of privacy as a fundamental right, and certainly one our founders intended to be held sacred.

If they intended it to be sacred, wouldn't they have written it into the Constitution? You, and quite a few politicians and lawyers, are second-guessing men probably ten times smarter and more well-read than you and I. They wrote a very specific document with very specific guidelines. I have no problem with the interpretation of the document, because our world is not nearly the same as that of the Founders. I can accept privacy as an inferred right, but NOT as a fundamental one, and certainly trumped by any of the ACTUAL explicit rights. Privacy can, and should, be trumped when it conflicts with other explicit rights in the document.

And, as my lawyer friends have told me time and again (most of them a) female and b) liberal), the legal right to abortion being perched and supported by the right to privacy is an enormous reach for the legal system, and very shaky ground to try and maintain such a controversial topic.

dienekes96 wrote:No, it isn't. Affirmative action isn't about being equal. Neither is NOW. It's about getting the most you can to make up for injustice. Enforcement of PC is a promise the Dems make to everyone. It's whay the party is a collection of individual interests. And now, so is the Republican Party, but the Dems have been that way for forty years. It's about the PERCEPTION of equal opportunity. In effect, I have to trust the government and those who make the laws to determine where the balance should be. That's not equal opportunity...that is "managed" opportunity.

Affirmative Action and NOW have nothing to do with being PC. Political Correctness is the process of considering the merit of one's statements in light of the opinions of the day. Strong leftist rhetoric is just as un-PC as anything that has come out of the Right in the past 30 years. Indeed, the Reagan focus on religion and the moral majority shows the beginning of that trend.

dogma, my point discussing NOW and AA was in reference to Ragnar's view of progressivism, not related to the PC point.

And what Reagan focus on religion?

jfrazell wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Any particular examples, JF? There is a clear pattern of conservative religious groups directly supporting candidates who pander to their particular social agendas, in violation of the principle of church/state separation, often in direct violation of IRS code. IME the politicians actively courting those votes are predominantly Republican.

Speech codes on campus, Obama's legal team sending letters to state AG's to get them to review political advertisements in direct violation of the history of free speech, states using state's right language to force religious wack jobs to to provide work for same sex couples. Wachignton DC attempting to circumvent SCOTUS's rulings on the 2nd Amendment. Recent SCOTUS rulings defeating stare decisis on eminent domain allowing states/cities to seize property without need for public interest. I'm not defending the Republicans on this. Both sides do it, they just attack different areas. They both are wont to attack my (and your) freedoms.

Warning: general rant about people trying to tell us what to do:

(Republican actions have already been noted so no need to rehash)

some items
Democrats threatening political speech
http://www.kxmb.com/getArticle.asp?ArticleId=279431

Minor taste of the speech code fight:
http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/9014.html

Threats to the 2nd amendment:
http://artfularticulations.blogspot.com/2008/10/illinois-gun-owners-dispute-obamas.html

Supreme Court eviscerating the 5th Amendment:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/23/AR2005062300783_pf.html

and some minor nonsense from the Motherland: Really can we move beyond wackjobviews from the 18th century already?
http://blog.darwincentral.org/2008/07/03/former-state-science-director-sues-over-intelligent-design-e-mail/

The reason some intelligent, moral people continue to support affirmative action and equal rights is because equality in opportunity is not an achieved good. It’s something we continually struggle towards, because prejudice and discrimination are not going to be extinguished.

I think privacy was such a fundamental assumption of their time and place that it went without saying. It wasn’t in question.

A whole lot of critical concepts weren’t written into the Constitution. The Bill of Rights makes that abundantly clear. They also expected it to be a living document, with changes made in accordance with the needs of the day. Privacy is one of the biggest, most important concerns of modern life. Asserting that we have no right to privacy is opening the door to incredible abuses.

JF-
Link 1: The Obama campaign (not Democrats in general) making a defensive move against a political ad.
Link 2: I don't see any Democrat involvement.
Link 3: Obama's personal record.
Link 4: Bush exercised this perversion of Eminent Domain to get the Rangers' stadium built. This isn't a Democrat thing. This is a shady scummy politics of wealth and profit thing.
Link 5: This doesn't appear connected to either party, but certainly more Republican politicians pander to the creationist and ID movement.

dienekes96 wrote:dogma, my point discussing NOW and AA was in reference to Ragnar's view of progressivism, not related to the PC point.

And what Reagan focus on religion?

You might want to re-read your post, because that is very definitely what you communicated.

As for Reagan's religiosity; entire books have been written on that. Here is one text I've used in writing about its role.

While I agree with you Manny, respectfully those rights were reserved by the people and the states.

Mannahnin wrote:The reason some intelligent, moral people continue to support affirmative action and equal rights is because equality in opportunity is not an achieved good. It’s something we continually struggle towards, because prejudice and discrimination are not going to be extinguished.

I think privacy was such a fundamental assumption of their time and place that it went without saying. It wasn’t in question.

A whole lot of critical concepts weren’t written into the Constitution. The Bill of Rights makes that abundantly clear. They also expected it to be a living document, with changes made in accordance with the needs of the day. Privacy is one of the biggest, most important concerns of modern life. Asserting that we have no right to privacy is opening the door to incredible abuses.

JF-
Link 1: The Obama campaign (not Democrats in general) making a defensive move against a political ad.
Link 2: I don't see any Democrat involvement.
Link 3: Obama's personal record.
Link 4: Bush exercised this perversion of Eminent Domain to get the Rangers' stadium built. This isn't a Democrat thing. This is a shady scummy politics of wealth and profit thing.
Link 5: This doesn't appear connected to either party, but certainly more Republican politicians pander to the creationist and ID movement.

Obama is the current head of the Democratic party. What you call a "defensive move" I call an unbridled attempt to snuff free speech, and most importantly time honrored free political speech.
2. Campus speech fight. Its definitely not a Republican thing. But I should preface and note my rants aren't party specific here. I could foam at the mouth about Delay for quite a while.
3. Personal record of the person who is the head fo the Democratic party and its candidate for President.
4. IIRC this was not an action brought in Texas. Agree though, that one's not party specific but government specific. Hey I did say these were my personal rants.
5. Agreed. This one's a Republican one out of fair Texas, proving there can even be trouble in Paradise.

Mannahnin wrote:The reason some intelligent, moral people continue to support affirmative action and equal rights is because equality in opportunity is not an achieved good. It’s something we continually struggle towards, because prejudice and discrimination are not going to be extinguished.

Who judges when they are extinguished? In short, who watches the watchmen, and all that? Do two wrongs make a right? Affirmative action, which I support in limited and controlled fashion, is inherently unfair. It is inherently racist itself. Supporting it wholeheartedly feeds the belief that "your" failing might not be your own. It is an outlet for mediocrity. It should be tolerated as the necessary evil it is, but hardly something worth crowing about. A better choice would be to support education at the earliest levels, and then let the chips fall where they may. Waiting until someone is 18 or 22 is waiting 12 years too late to make a difference.

Mannahnin wrote:I think privacy was such a fundamental assumption of their time and place that it went without saying. It wasn’t in question.

I still fail to grasp that argument, Ragnar. What writings make you believe that, preferably writings by the Founders themselves?

It still reads like a judgement call that you are making. Clearly, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were fundamental assumptions, and they were clearly stated as such. I have a pocket Constitution on my desk, and it codifies a lot of things that I would argue "go without saying". What makes privacy the exception? They were very clear in what rights were held where. Where there was question...they wanted it to be so. Which leads me to...

Mannahnin wrote:A whole lot of critical concepts weren’t written into the Constitution. The Bill of Rights makes that abundantly clear. They also expected it to be a living document, with changes made in accordance with the needs of the day. Privacy is one of the biggest, most important concerns of modern life. Asserting that we have no right to privacy is opening the door to incredible abuses.

And the Bill of Rights was required for the Constitutional Convention to pass when it did (1787 vs. the Bill of Rights in 1791). It wasn't a OOPs. It was a designed choice to better think about the actual Bill of Rights and necessary ADDITIONS to the Constitution. After four years...privacy still wasn't included. It was certainly inferred, in any case it did not contradict the original document and it's amendments.

My argument isn't that we don't have a right to privacy. It's that we don't have a fundamental right to privacy, held sacrosanct in the Constitution.

Where the Constitution needs to go, it may do so:

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

Privacy is not a primacy. It must be defended and attacked based on the current situation facing the government of America. Privacy is NOT Liberty NOR Freedom, no matter how hard anyone positions it so.

I saw this quote by Ben Franklin a number of times in the last few years, usually talking about defense of privacy, not liberty:

"The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either."

Always aimed like an arrow at the heart of the (awfully named) Patriot Act. Except for it completely misses. The Patriot Act did not alter our freedoms one iota. It pushed back on the absolute right of privacy in terms of "common defence" and "general Welfare". I agree it's a fine line, but it will have to be walked by the current governments. The Constitution deemed it so, through the Founders. Because they knew privacy was dependent on the status of the nation at any given time. As you yourself noted in your third paragraph.

So asserting that we DO and MUST have the right to absolute privacy is just as dangerous as pretending it doesn't exist.

I tend to concur with Justice Brandeis on this one:

Justice Brandeis's dissent in Olmstead v. U. S. (1928): wrote:

"The makers of our Constitution understood the need to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness, and the protections guaranteed by this are much broader in scope, and include the right to life and an inviolate personality -- the right to be left alone -- the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men. The principle underlying the Fourth and Fifth Amendments is protection against invasions of the sanctities of a man's home and privacies of life. This is a recognition of the significance of man's spiritual nature, his feelings, and his intellect.

Equating my position with saying there is a right to "absolute privacy" is a straw man arguement.

Affirmative action doesn't have to be about race, either, so claiming it's inherently racist is an untruth.

dogma wrote:You might want to re-read your post, because that is very definitely what you communicated.

I did reread it. I am responding to progressivism. Ragnar's lead-in is in response to my PC comments earlier (seriously, who was more PC..."Clinton the poll watcher" or Bush "17%"), but the bulk of my paragraph following that quote is specifically about equal opportunity. Maybe I could have been clearer, but it's hardly definitive.

dogma wrote:As for Reagan's religiosity; entire books have been written on that. Here is one text I've used in writing about its role.

Our entire country was founded on judeo-Christian ethics. To posit that Reagan's religiosity is any more impactful than another president's, I would need more than an unpublished conference paper. I would need to know what fundamental shifts occured in our laws with a specific religious basis. I am not trying to be pedantic, but what a president believes isn't terribly relevant to me. What a president DOES is.