The Evil Boy Scouts

[lavender]

 

[Weevil]

Am I the only one who thinks a Gay Boy scout troop would be, by far, the most fun troop to to be in?

 

[Andra_Jenny]

THAT IS SO FAWKING DEEP

But, Carville, Rush, and Andra are populists and that is what get votes.

CARVILLLE: how many times do I got to tell you, these people ain't smart, you talk to them above a 6 grade level of education and you will allienate them, god damnit how many times I gotta tell you Bubbha, Lie hard, Lie fast, lie often, hell that's what AJ does, shit, you sissy, why polotics ain't beanbag son, and you can quote JFK on that one...

 

[Unclebill]

Originally posted by lavender
Uncle Bill, if we looked at this from a level of political theory rather than pragmatism we will find a much different answer. …

I'm familiar with the concept you address. I'm not looking at the theoretical model but the practices in place by today's politicians. And the practitioners of behaviors which fit the Fascist definition are far more often associated with the Democrat/Left/Liberal self-assigned titles and labels.

Originally posted by lavender
I think you have a very black and white notion of the Republican and Democratic parties. In a way, I believe it is an antiquated idea. No party demonizes the other about reducing the government's size. Granted ideologically Republicans prefer smaller government and Democrats are seen to prefer larger government. But ideologically and the way things pragmatically occur are two different things. On many occasions the government expands under a Republican leader or retracts under a Democratic leader. The small vs. large government is just simply a kind of litmus test between party lines. It doesn't always ring true in application.

I have pretty well black and white standards period. I have well defined and consistent values. I do find it interesting that you believe that having well defined values, i. e., black and white perceptions as antiquated. Especially when the alternative is gray or blurred, undefined or ill-defined values. The Republican prefer smaller government is a misconception based on the fact that government has continued to grow in both cost and its pervasive, intrusive nature under both parties. The Republicans seemingly want slower growth of the behemoth than do the Democrats who seem on an exuberant forced march into collectivism.

Give me an example of government retracting (becoming smaller?) under any administration in the past 75 years.

The series of observations and the attendant questions were not meant to do more than generalize for this instance some things related specifically to my use of the term Fascist.

At the risk of repeating myself, I see little substantive differences between the two parties when they are evaluated at the level of the underlying principles relating to the political decisions they make and the programs they advance and support. The only major difference I see is the degree of government abuse that is tolerable and manner and level of dishonesty they are willing to practice to achieve their ends.

And the Democratic party has demonstrated time and again that there is no lie, no act of character assassination, no amount of distortion that is disallowed in their campaigns. The Republicans are more nearly held to the line of honor and honesty as demonstrated by the past 8-9 years of literally criminal behavior on the part of a Democrat in the White House and the unflagging defense of this thug by the party leadership and the press.

"No party demonizes the other about reducing the government's size." You can't seriously expect me to believe this one! When the Republicans proposed reducing the rate of growth of the school lunch program a few years back so it would only grow at twice the rate of inflation, the Democrats were all over the media saying Republicans wanted to starve children. And that's only one example. A more recent demonization attack was the Democrats' ads about arsenic in the drinking water. Yet they were the same standards that existed under Clinton for 8 years.

Originally posted by lavender
As for returning educational decisions for the local community, I think this is also flawed. The Dept of Education, the national level of education, was all but disbanded under the Clinton Administration. I will grant you that this was largely due to a Republican Congress. However, Bush has reignited the Dept of Education. Bush is the one who proposes national test standards as well as national education programs. Last time I checked, he was a Republican. And yet, he was proposing more national oriented educational goals. I don't think school vouchers is truly a partisan issue. There are many Republicans who support vouchers and there are many Republicans who do not. Same thing on the Democratic side of the ticket. I, for one, do NOT support vouchers. It has nothing to do with inhibiting choice as much as the fact that it will break the system.

From the reports I hear, Bush is requiring standards. The standards are to be set at the local level according to him. Without standards (as we are now) the public education system is producing functional illiterates.

Personally, I would favor national standards if they were set by a consortium of private colleges and universities based on entry level requirements for those institutions on the whole. I am convinced based on observation that politicians are not competent to define the standards.

As far as the public school system, it's already broken and the efforts of political activists is to prevent fixing it. Why does the NEA, the CTA and other education unions oppose parental choice? They don't want parents to have the freedom of choice to go elsewhere when these people are producing a dismal failure. Vouchers would go a long way to accomplishing the repair process.

Why? Because if the public schools did not perform, the parents could at least have the money presently stolen by government to pay for schools that don't produce quality education if any at all. This money they could use for private education or for a public school of their choice that was providing the quality of education they desire for their kids.

Given the power of choice, the parents could then force the improvement of the school system by not being slaves to pay for a broken system and unable to escape it.

Originally posted by lavender
Regarding health care, in 1992 all sides of the issue had health care proposals, not just the Democrats. Bill and Hillary abandoned a truly universal health care system because they believed it would never be accepted. But numerous Republicans had their own plans such as Medical Savings Accounts and the Heritage Foundation had their own plan for trying to alleviate the problem of 36 million Americans without health insurance. This was a problem that both parties felt needed to be solved. Both parties looked to the government to solve this problem. In the end, there was little compromise.

Read the Constitution. This is another of a myriad of things NOT authorized to the Federal government. They are violating their oath of office to venture into this arena.

That's just the most fundamental and proper objection. That government is the most inefficient, unaccountable and most irresponsible manager of resources should be the first reason you don't want them in the health care business at all. The only reason someone might want government involved is to be able to force someone else to pay for their health care, a al, socialized medicine of one extent or another. Medicare as a classic example in that it has diminished the quality and skyrocketed the cost of health care as well as incubated and nourished exorbitant fraud.

And I agree that the Republicans are as guilty as the Democrats here but they are forced into a corner if they are to win an election. Note the drugs for the elderly whipped up by Algore in the last election. An unconstitutional collectivist socialist welfare scheme but we don't seem to have enough thinking Americans anymore to reject these stupid, irresponsible and illegal proposals.

Originally posted by lavender
As for taxes, both Rs and Ds increase and decrease taxes. Bush Sr. had an incredibly large tax increase, even though he said no new taxes. Many democrats at times support tax reductions. I believe that this has less to do with party affiliation than it has to do with the economic cycle. At times within a Keynesian model of economics, we need to cut taxes and at times we need to increase taxes. It just happens depending on the economic advice from advisors as to what part of the cycle are economy is currently going through. As for the rest of this post it is rather ambiguous and with various issues could be debated either way.

A legitimate government in a free society has only one proper function; to protect the rights of its citizens. Government does not produce wealth, it only consumes it. Thus government is a negative economic influence on its society.

In order for government to be least detrimental, it must necessarily consume the least possible wealth which means that taxation must be kept to the minimum practical for utmost prosperity. Raising taxes should only occur when extraordinary government costs are encountered, e. g., a war or other legitimately incurred expenses.

Originally posted by lavender
You can't possibly be saying that only democrats participate in this activity. That would be just simply ignoring everything that goes on in our country. Examples : Clinton and various scandals that were not corroborated. The Clinton vandalism scandal is another example. Look at Gary Hart's incident. Good god the list goes on and on. BOTH parties are guilty of this. Give me a break. Your posts are always very well thought out and I can respect your opinion. You told me in an earlier post to get my facts straight. Follow your own advice sometime.

My point was which party practices it incessantly. I did not exculpate the Republicans, merely offer that they are far less egregious at it than are the Democrats. And part of the reason the Democrats are so blatant and unconcerned about it is that the press carries them for a free ride. Any claim a Democrat politician makes is touted as newsworthy and is repeated incessantly in the press. But let a Republican make a claim and if it is addressed, they are challenged to back it up.

The Democrats have demonstrated that they do not want any of the campaign issue problems solved. This is to their political detriment because a problem solved is a campaign issue lost. For 8 years, Clinton did little but service his libido, bad mouth Republicans and bomb innocent people when the next scandal was to hit the front page. But when he finally signed their proposals on welfare reform and other things, he claimed credit for the successes despite his years of opposition to these same measures.

What of the Clinton scandals not corroborated received anything but lying, stalling and obstruction of justice by the Clintons, their aides, and the justice department of Janet Reno? And if you recall, despite their best efforts, there were several felony convictions from the various Clinton scandals.

Originally posted by lavender
Censorship? Democrats? Don't make me laugh. Political correctness is not censorship. You are not censored from saying things. The Democrats just understand the power language has on human psychology and sociology. Therefore they are more careful with their speech. At times it goes overboard, but it is well-intentioned. Who advocates hate crimes? UncleBill where are you getting this crap?

This political correctness crap is the first step and hate crime laws are the next. If the Democrats recognize the power language has in these arenas, then why have they demonstrated a total disregard for the truth in their campaigns, in their incessant lying campaigns about opposing ideas and the people who propose them. As for intentions, Adolf Hitler had good intentions for Germany's future. So much for good intentions. When truth, honor and integrity are sacrificed, how can you possibly accept the idea that someone's intentions are noble? How do you make that leap?

Let me clarify since it was not understood from the context. I was referring to legislation which defines the category "hate crime" and prescribes more stringent punishment which is touted by the Left. This is the class of crime in which the criminal is punished not for the criminal act but for the thoughts he may have had prior to or during the commission of a heinous act. Admittedly my statement was poorly worded (I omitted the word legislation following hate crime) but I would have expected that the context would clarify the meaning, esp. since I've made a similar statement in various other posts.

Originally posted by lavender
I don't find your observations objective in the least. In fact I find them incredibly biased. You have twisted many facts in a very illogical manner.

Such as? Or is this the attack the messenger, not the message ploy so eloquently used by the Left? From my observation, it seems typical of the Left to accuse others of those things of which you are guilty thus diverting attention from yourself. For example, claiming racism as one's motive for opposing a program that is irrational, ill conceived and/or unconstitutional.

Originally posted by lavender
Trust me, I'm well aware of the unenumerated rights within the Bill of Rights. However, this does not mitigate the point I made earlier. There are those, on the Right, such as Scalia and Thomas who are strict constructionists. They believe that if the rights are NOT specifically enumerated (even considering the 10th amendment) that they do not exist. For example, Scalia does not believe we have a right to privacy. He normally dissents on all sorts of cases that link back to Roe's predecessors. He believes that we would have to have an amendment to establish a right to privacy before he will read that into the Bill of Rights.

If this is the case, then the Strict Constructions label is obviously misplaced on these justices. From the Federalist Papers, it is apparent that privacy was one of the concerns of the Framers. So much so, in fact, they eliminated an income tax as a potential revenue source for the Federal government specifically because they recognized the potential for government to become involved in the private lives of the American citizen and considered that too dangerous a potential to create. Scalia is entitled to his opinion albeit wrong. Unfortunately, he is in a position such that his ill-conceived opinion has the power to wreak havoc.

Originally posted by lavender
Yes, they are able to choose with whom they associate. However, this does NOT extend to government sanctioned support for the organization. Once the organization begins discriminating or violating another individuals rights the government should not give it a thums up. We should not give them a free ride at all. There is a clear distinction here.

You are offering a synonymous assertion of discrimination and violation of someone's rights which is erroneous. Explain to me how my refusal to associate with you violates your rights in any fashion whatsoever.

I will agree that my seeking legal sanction and aid to coerce said association does violate your rights but your assertions that my choice to not wish an association with you does also leaves me totally bewildered in its illogical, irrational implication. And this is specifically the case of the Boy Scouts. They are merely declining an association. It is the other party who seeks coercion exerted to establish an undesired association.

What you advocate is government discrimination against the Boy Scouts. Remember, this organization is composed of individuals who have the same rights as everyone else in a society that honors freedom. According to the Constitution, each one is supposed to be seen as equal under the law which means that if the law cannot coerce one, it cannot coerce another. Yet this is what you advocate because there is disagreement with the Boy Scout decision motives. Government in a free society must be prohibited from either a "thumbs up" or "thumbs down" stance on any but criminals with whom it is government's proper responsibility to deal.

And if we had a legitimate Constitutional government, neither they nor anyone else would be getting this "free ride".

 

[Andra_Jenny]

Again it is over my head, but the two parties are peas in a pod!

And no matter how good or bad or who controls the educational system, it is a free country and you can educate yourself ala Lincoln. Let each community go back to teaching it's own!

 

[Laurel]

Am I the only one who thinks a Gay Boy scout troop would be, by far, the most fun troop to to be in?

Field trips to San Francisco.

All-night Judy Garland marathons.

Merit badges in shopping.

Count me in.

 

[lavender]

 

[*Lazer*]

Thank you all you crazy girls and guys!!!!

One of the most disturbing memories I have of my middle school years is that of a english teacher who made us listen to her read the works of Ayn Rand. Our teacher was a die hard John Bircher. She was relentless in her preaching and taught me a very valuable lesson. I will be forever grateful to her incessant dribbling for it prompted me to read more about political history and to form my own opinions. I owe Andra Jenny, Todd and Uncle Bill a thank you, for making me more vigilant about staying current with politics. They scare me enough to get out and vote on everything.

 

[Unclebill]

Originally posted by lavender
Hey Uncle Bill, which form of libertarianism do you follow? Are you a Nozick supporter? Do you truly believe the objectivist principles of Rand? What is it? Or is it a combo? I'm truly interested because I'll be able to discuss it more intelligibly if I know what form or hybrid of libertarianism you support.

Philosophy - Ayn Rand's Objectivism
Politically - Libertarian; retuen to a Constitutional government, repeal of the 16th amendment, etc.
Who's Nozick?

 

[lavender]

 

[Andra_Jenny]

I do try to provide a service

 

[Unclebill]

Originally posted by lavender
Nozick is the leading writer on libertarian theory.

That's interesting. Among all the Libertarians with whom I've talked and otherwise communicated, I've never heard the name mentioned. If he were that important in the political arena or the party, I'd think at least someone would have mentioned the name.

 

[Todd]

That's interesting. Among all the Libertarians with whom I've talked and otherwise communicated, I've never heard the name mentioned. If he were that important in the political arena or the party, I'd think at least someone would have mentioned the name.

Knowing Lavender , Nozick is probably a Democrat that writes what he thinks he knows about Libertarian Theory