Comments Posted By busboy33
Displaying 151 To 160 Of 657 Comments
THE DIFFERENT REALITY INHABITED BY THE CONSERVATIVE BASE
@EricF:
"Let’s remember, dear reader, that way we lost the last election so badly, both to the conservative base and the supposed middle, who either sat on their hands in their disatisfaction, or crossed the road to vote for Obama, was that the GOP decided to compromise on their principles."
To some extent, yes. But I think part of what Rick is saying is that this didn't happen last year. Espousing family values and fiscal discipline while fu@king everything that walks and running up the debt does drive away voters . . . but Republicans (NOT Conservatives . . . Republicans) have been doing that for decades at least.
Waving Curious George dolls at rallies, screaming Socialist and meaning it, "I don't trust him . . . he's an Arab", how dare a sitting President speak to schoolchildren, I want Obama to fail . . . that's new, and that's NOT part of Conservative principles, and it shouldn't be part of Republican principles either.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 17.10.2009 @ 13:05
'WHY DON'T YOU PASS THE TIME BY WRITING ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING?'
You know a movie is good when it can scare the hell out of you without dramatic music, special effects, omnipresent darkness, "boo!" moments, or any other childish trick.
Angely Lansbury's monolouge ("you will be given a two-piece Soviet Army sniper rifle . . .") is still one of the top 5 most terrifying things I've ever seen in a movie. I still get chills when I see it (and I can't watch Murder She Wrote without an ever-present sense she's about to get medevial on Tom Bosley's ass). Damn, that woman can act.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 17.10.2009 @ 13:15
THE NFL IS WORRIED ABOUT A 'RACIST' OWNER?'
@Silvo:
Respectfully, this has nothing to do with free speech.
Your free speech rights protect you from the government limiting your speech in certain ways. The NFL isn't the government. And in this case the NFL never got around to denying Limbaugh . . . the consortium that he was part of that was trying to buy into the NFL dropped him before the bid.
Limbaugh was trying to be business partner of the consortium. They have a right not to do business with him. If you own a store, and David Duke wants to buy into your business, you have a right not to work with him. Your product may be available to the public, but your business does not have to be.
Furthermore, nobody has limited Limbaugh's speech. He is still free to say exactly what he wants. He hasn't lost his job because of his speech (although EIB, not being the government, may well be free to drop him if it chooses depending on his contract).
This situation has nothing to do with "free speech" issues. At all.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 17.10.2009 @ 18:15
@Chris (#46)
Exactly who should he sue? He was dropped by the consortium, not the NFL. A private consortium has a right not to take his money. He has no right to demand that the consortium allow him to join them.
By all means though, rage against the machine. Damn that free market capitalism! Damn it to hell!
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 17.10.2009 @ 00:31
@Twopolitics:
It's really not that hard.
Let me give you an example -- "Man, there are so many Poles in here the average I.Q. just dropped 20 points." Or how about "Of course the promoted Greenberg. Jews sure are good with money."
Does that sound racist? How about, “The NAACP should have riot rehearsal. They should get a liquor store and practice robberies.”
I'm amazed that Conservatives can see the cold evil lurkinmg within Obama's breast with every word he utters, but $h!t that slaps them in the face doesn't exist.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 16.10.2009 @ 13:37
@ Rick:
No, Limbaugh is no racist. . . . He’s a racial provocateur."
I'm missing the subtle distinction between the two.
Is the difference "what's in your heart"? What you actually believe? That I can be a provocateur without actually believing in the cause? As you've pointed out in many posts in the past, nobody knows what evil lurks within the hearts of men (except of course Lamont Cranston). If you delibrately and intentionally stir up racial dissent (that's a provocateur's role, yes? To provoke?) should your actions be considered different if you really hate the darkies, or you're just doing it for profit?
"But Rush, God love him, would find no advantage to being a racist and hence, doesn’t even try to play one on the radio."
So there's no advantage to actually being a racist, but there is an advantage to acting like one?
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 15.10.2009 @ 18:57
Guess he overestimated the advantage when it comes to buying into the NFL.
INTELLECTUAL CONSERVATISM ISN'T DEAD: MAINTAINING A CONSISTENT PHILOSOPHY
Here may be the difference in what we are saying to each other.
You've explained how the Constitution should be interpreted. You've explained how things that are not literally in the comnstitution should still be allowed because they are the correct interpretation of Intent. You've explained how some things (the FAA) should be read in the Constitution, and other things (healthcare reform) shouldn't.
Those are your opinions, and bless you for them. But to use an old phrase, your opinion and 50 cents'll get you a cop of coffee.
Last thread you mentioned O'Connor's decision in the Mich. U. racial profile case:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=02-241
You brought the case up to point out how SCOTUS violates the Constitution, noting that she "completely disregarded the 14th Amendment".
But the entire reason there was a case before the Supremes was so that they COULD consider the impact on the Amendment:"We granted certiorari, 537 U. S. 1043 (2002), to resolve the disagreement among the Courts of Appeals on a question of national importance: Whether diversity is a compelling interest that can justify the narrowly tailored use of race in selecting applicants for admission to public universities."
Disregarded? It's all they dealt with! Read the decision. She meticulously details the origin, meaning of words and phrases, case history, facts and factors, and provides an authorative justification for all of it. "She disregarded it" reads the same to me as "I would have decided it differently".
And if that's the case . . . good for you. I disagree with Court decisions all the time. Most of SCOTUS cases are decided 5-4, which is a pretty good illustration that these questions don't have indisputible answers, so it should go without saying that people will disagree with it.
But "let's tear the system down and wipe the slate clean" is not the right answer. I disagree with SCOTUS in Bush v. Gore . . . but I had to soldier on under it. The only way to insure the Supreme Court is going to interpret the Constitution in the way you think is correct is to be on the Court . . . and limiting the number of Judges to one.
I disagree with your judicial interpretation, but that's fine. I disagreed with just about every thing my Con Law Professor believed. I had a student last year that Set a new record for being "wrong" in his interpretations . . . but he got an A from me (as I got from my professor) because his technique for arriving at those conclusions was sound. It's how you think, not what you think.
THERE IS NO RIGHT ANSWER. Everything about our system is designed to allow for that.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 15.10.2009 @ 11:04
@foobarista:
So do propose to abolish those Government agencies that stem from an expansive reading of the Commerce Clause? The FAA, Nuclear Regulatory Agencies, FDA, Interstate Highways, and so forth? Are you going to replace them or simply stop covering what they do?
I always thought the Conservatives were the ones grounded in reality, and the Liberals were the flights-of-fancy "wouldn't it be great if" dreamers.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 13.10.2009 @ 22:49
@TMLutas:
killing of the bottom 10% of the budget -- what's the rating criteria? What constitutes "worst"? Is it a straight cost/benefit line? Kiss the national parks and monuments goodbye. I'd think most of the military would be on the block too (where's the profit in a nuclear aircraft carrier, or a few more submarines?). Is it an ideological "worst"? Does ACORN funding outrank faith-based abstenance programs?
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 13.10.2009 @ 09:45
Your idea is emotionally attractive, but I don't see how it could actually work. That's like proposing the government do the "right" thing. Yes, they should do that. First, we need to establish the exact meaning of "right". Or in this case, "worst".
CAN THE GOP HELP GOVERN WHILE IN THE MINORITY?
"By your same logic, if the SCOTUS reaches a decision that is blatantly incorrect, and I can think of many, who is to stop them?"
The only check on SCOTUS is (depending on the text of their decision) for the Legislative branch to re-write the Federal law or amend the Constitution.
Example1: Congress passes a law impacting "vehicles". Is a Segway (those mall-cop scooters) covered by the law? If the law is unclear, the Courts (with SCOTUS at the top) will say what "vehicles" means based on a variety of established rules (stare decisis, precedent, etc.). If Congress doesn't like their interpreteation of the the word "vehicle" then they can re-write the law to state its meaning explicitly.
Example2: Congress passes a law saying "you can't burn flags". The Courts (with SCOTUS at the top) review the law (if challenged) to make sure Congress has the Constitutional authortity to do that. In this case, burning a flag is a form of protest speech, and the 1st Amendment prohibits the government from legislating it in that manner. Can't do it in a fireworks factory -- fine. Can't do it at all ever -- no. If Congress (or the people) don't like it, they have to Amend the Constitution to say "The 1st Amendment doesn't cover flag burning" or some such. Then, it's constitutional and SCOTUS is going to have to say the document allows the flag-burning law.
I have never, and will never, claim this is the "best" system in terms of SCOTUS being all-wise and never making bad decisions. Dred Scot is the most obvious example of them being totally, clearly, utterly wrong in thought and deed.
But wrong as that case was . . . it was the law.
There are certainly dangers in this type of governmental system. You are correct that under this system SCOTUS has the actual power to declare themselves Gods and legally demand human sacrifices. That's why they (a) can't actually do anything and (b) can't choose what to decide. They choose what questions they are asked they want to answer . . . but they can't say "we want to decide flag-burning". If nobody asks them to voice an opinion, then they are impotent.That last part is IMO the magic key to making the system work. Judges (and the Judiciary in general) exist to referee disputes between entities in a society. If you and I have a dispute (I think you owe me money, for example) and we can work it out between us, then the Judges sit around playing solitare. If we CAN'T work it out, either we agree to let someone else make the decision . . . or there is going to be a problem. We agree as people to submit voluntarily to the decision of the Judiciary, because otherwise I'm coming by with a baseball bat and getting my money you theiving sumbitch . . . and we are at some unpleasant "Mad Max" situations now.
Advocating "ignore SCOTUS" is IMO (and I gotta say I'm fairly confident I'm objectively right about this) advocating for Revolution, and not the cool "waving a flag on the barricades" way but in the "people bleeding to death in the street as the city burns" kind of way.
Without a mechanism like this, all societies throughout history collapse. Give me two months and 30 hours and I'll document it all out for you, but for brevity's sake I 'll just say I swear to you (for whatever that's worth) that this is essentially a settled point amongst societial historians, political ideology be damned.
We CAN ignore the courts. Congress and the Executive CAN tell SCOTUS to go to hell. But that is essentially triggering the self-destruct mechanism to keep America from being corrupted beyond repair. It is the LAST step, because it WILL lead to the disolution of the United States. Its a final solution.
To me, these are "Defcon 1" actions -- amend the Constitution, radically restructure the American Government, etc. You DON'T do it over a policy dispute. Or you shouldn't. Over 200 years and we only have 27 Amendments. The 1st 10 were an almost immediate edit of the Constitution, 21 is just to override 19 (illustrating why editing the donstitution is not something to do over policy issues), 14-16 were all at once . . . Americans avoid editing the stone tablet as much as possible, and we should.
You shouldn't put all Federal law into Amendments because you shouldn't Amend the conbstitution if you can possibly avoid it. That's what the Federal Law IS -- Congress is charged with taxation, and so the Federal Tax Code is the detailed embodiment of that Constututional power.
You need a detailed embodiment of Constitutional power to get things done. But the actual code itself is designed to be changed much easier than changing the Constitution. The Constitution is the simple statement of ideas and principles. It laws down the parameters of the system. But the details of the system are constantly in flux. The Federal Code gets amended, adapted, updated, redacted, all the time.
The Constitution should always remain as pure and minimalist as possible. You don't want, purely for practical necessity, a Constitution that spans thousands of pages. The Constitution isn't the Law, or the Government. It guides how they look, but it isn't the actual nuts-and-bolts blueprint for how everything works.a) You are logically consistent, and I both admire that and salute you for it. I don't agree, but you're not making it up as you go along and I'll never begrudge another's reasoned opinion no matter how much I disagree.
c) Social Security -- you raise the benefits of eliminating Social Security. What about the problems?
All the current SS receipents -- throw them out on the street? Some people rely on it to live. Cancel the program, and they will die. MILLIONS of Americans could well die because of what you are proposing.
I've been paying in for 2 decades . . . you telling me that I've just had all that money disappear? That's a couple hundred million people you just re-wrote their entire financial existence.What about the FAA? Get rid of it? Unconstitutional? Let the States all set their own rules for pilot licensing and procedures? What does that do to air travel? Product shipments? International business? Our economy? What happened for a few days after 9-11? Why did Regan bring in scabs? Because we NEED air travel as a country. How long do you think it will take all 50 States to get their stuff in order?
I just don't see following this idea to its logical conclusion as being an option. I acknowledge and admire the intellectual consistency and purity of the idea, and in pure debate I'm waving the red flag right along side of you. But in terms of implementing it into reality -- no. Its not a sound plan of action. I respectfully disagree.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 13.10.2009 @ 11:08
