[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Freepers Still Love war Parody ... Jump / Trump --- van Halen jump "The Democrat Meltdown Continues" "Yes, We Need Deportations Without Due Process" "Trump's Tariff Play Smart, Strategic, Working" "Leftists Make Desperate Attempt to Discredit Photo of Abrego Garcia's MS-13 Tattoos. Here Are Receipts" "Trump Administration Freezes $2 Billion After Harvard Refuses to Meet Demands"on After Harvard Refuses to Meet Demands "Doctors Committing Insurance Fraud to Conceal Trans Procedures, Texas Children’s Whistleblower Testifies" "Left Using '8647' Symbol for Violence Against Trump, Musk" KawasakiÂ’s new rideable robohorse is straight out of a sci-fi novel "Trade should work for America, not rule it" "The Stakes Couldn’t Be Higher in Wisconsin’s Supreme Court Race – What’s at Risk for the GOP" "How Trump caught big-government fans in their own trap" ‘Are You Prepared for Violence?’ Greek Orthodox Archbishop gives President Trump a Cross, tells him "Make America Invincible" "Trump signs executive order eliminating the Department of Education!!!" "If AOC Is the Democratic Future, the Party Is Even Worse Off Than We Think" "Ending EPA Overreach" Closest Look Ever at How Pyramids Were Built Moment the SpaceX crew Meets Stranded ISS Crew The Exodus Pharaoh EXPLAINED! Did the Israelites Really Cross the Red Sea? Stunning Evidence of the Location of Red Sea Crossing! Are we experiencing a Triumph of Orthodoxy? Judge Napolitano with Konstantin Malofeev (Moscow, Russia) "Trump Administration Cancels Most USAID Programs, Folds Others into State Department" Introducing Manus: The General AI Agent "Chinese Spies in Our Military? Straight to Jail" Any suggestion that the USA and NATO are "Helping" or have ever helped Ukraine needs to be shot down instantly "Real problem with the Palestinians: Nobody wants them" ACDC & The Rolling Stones - Rock Me Baby Magnus Carlsen gives a London System lesson! "The Democrats Are Suffering Through a Drought of Generational Talent" 7 Tactics Of The Enemy To Weaken Your Faith Strange And Biblical Events Are Happening Every year ... BusiesT casino gambling day -- in Las Vegas Trump’s DOGE Plan Is Legally Untouchable—Elon Musk Holds the Scalpel Palestinians: What do you think of the Trump plan for Gaza? What Happens Inside Gaza’s Secret Tunnels? | Unpacked Hamas Torture Bodycam Footage: "These Monsters Filmed it All" | IDF Warfighter Doron Keidar, Ep. 225 EXPOSED: The Dark Truth About the Hostages in Gaza New Task Force Ready To Expose Dark Secrets Egypt Amasses Forces on Israel’s Southern Border | World War 3 About to Start? "Trump wants to dismantle the Education Department. Here’s how it would work" test "Federal Workers Concerned That Returning To Office Will Interfere With Them Not Working" "Yes, the Democrats Have a Governing Problem – They Blame America First, Then Govern Accordingly" "Trump and His New Frenemies, Abroad and at Home" "The Left’s Sin Is of Omission and Lost Opportunity" "How Trump’s team will break down the woke bureaucracy" Pete Hegseth will be confirmed in a few minutes Status: Not Logged In; Sign In United States News See other United States News Articles Title: The GOP Is Dying Off. Literally. Source: Politico URL Source: http://www.politico.com/magazine/st ... 8035.html?hp=t2_r#.VVnQK_lVhHx Published: May 17, 2015 Author: DANIEL J. MCGRAW Post Date: 2015-05-18 07:50:21 by Jameson Keywords: Old Angry, White, Guys Views: 28971 Comments: 128 It turns out that one of the Grand Old Party’s biggest—and least discussed—challenges going into 2016 is lying in plain sight, written right into the party’s own nickname. The Republican Party voter is old—and getting older, and as the adage goes, there are two certainties in life: Death and taxes. Right now, both are enemies of the GOP and they might want to worry more about the former than the latter. There’s been much written about how millennials are becoming a reliable voting bloc for Democrats, but there’s been much less attention paid to one of the biggest get-out-the-vote challenges for the Republican Party heading into the next presidential election: Hundreds of thousands of their traditional core supporters won’t be able to turn out to vote at all. The party’s core is dying off by the day. Read more: www.politico.com/magazine...118035.html#ixzz3aURTGXqk Click for Full Text! Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 94. #2. To: Jameson (#0) The GOP represents crony capitalists. That's its core. Those are the people who always get everything that want out of the GOP. To get the votes and the seats to advance that agenda, the GOP has in contemporary times made allies with militarists and pro-life Christians, gun nuts and other so-called "conservative" causes. The problem, though, is that crony capitalists in general are liberal rich people, so they WANT abortion rights, and gun control, and open borders, and they want government contracts but not full-on wars to victory that require tax hikes. And, because the Republicans always do the bidding of the crony capitalists, who are really liberal on social issues, the result has been that the systematic betrayal of the Christian pro-lifers, the Borderbots, the gun nuts and the soldiery. Republicans only fight to the death for one thing: low taxes on the rich (and contracts for cronies). Everything else is negotiable. Net result? The crony capitalists are intensely loyal to the GOP base, but others have left, stayed home, given up. And it isn't as though Mexicans, or young people, or really, anybody, is flocking into the GOP. It's time for a new party. Crony capitalism has a death grip on the Republican Party that cannot be, and will never be, pried loose. People have two choices: form a new party, or satisfy themselves with Democrat rule. I'm not satisfied with Democrat rule. I want to see a third party. But Republican rule is godawful and old people are stubborn. So we're going to get Hillary. Oh well. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-05-18   8:13:46 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #12. To: Vicomte13 (#2) Oh well. What are your thoughts on a constitutional convention? Jameson  posted on  2015-05-18   10:35:20 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #14. To: Jameson (#12) What are your thoughts on a constitutional convention? I'm mildly in favor,for the same reason I favor Scottish independence: it will be entertaining. I doubt anything good will come out of a convention, because the entrenched powers are too entrenched, so they'll just use the convention to further entrench and streamline. But I'm prepared to be surprised. A constitutional amendment that stated that life began at conception and (therefore) banned abortion outright would be good. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-05-18   10:41:59 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #82. To: Vicomte13, Jameson (#14) [Vicomte13] A constitutional amendment that stated that life began at conception and (therefore) banned abortion outright would be good. As phrased, the amendment might accomplish nothing. Abortion as interpreted by Roe depends on competing interests of the State and the individual at various stages of development, and whether the fetus is viable. For the purpose you appear to desire, an amendment may be preferred holding that a fetus, from conception, is a person under the 14th Amendment. (If the Union Pacific RR Corp can do it, why not a fetus?) You might want to change the citizenship clause to confer citizenship at conception. This raises a few other issues: The “anchor fetus” would replace the “anchor baby.” In the case of rape, the government would require the impregnated victim of the crime to carry the rapist’s child to term and deliver it. Can the mother, impregnated and forced to give birth against her will, be held responsible for the child or to pay child support? nolu chan  posted on  2015-05-22   17:02:08 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #83. To: nolu chan (#82) Yes, the rape victim must carry the baby. She cannot murder the child. No, she cannot be compelled to provide child support out of the gate. She has the right to give up the child to the state for orphanage or adoption, if she does so at once. However, if she keeps the child, she loses this right. Long-term optionality does not remain. The mother must bear the child, but she either keeps the newborn or hands it over for adoption. In this way, the child is affected least. Of course the abolition of abortion means that there will have to be a larger and more effective social safety net, because without abortion there would be 1.5 million more kids in the country every year, and probably 1,3 million of them would be poor. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-05-22   18:06:09 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #88. To: Vicomte13 (#83) Yes, the rape victim must carry the baby. She cannot murder the child. No, she cannot be compelled to provide child support out of the gate. She has the right to give up the child to the state for orphanage or adoption, if she does so at once. However, if she keeps the child, she loses this right. Long-term optionality does not remain. The mother must bear the child, but she either keeps the newborn or hands it over for adoption. In this way, the child is affected least. I believe this is truly the only possible moral position consistent with the religious belief that all life is sacred and life begins at conception. The real elephant in the room is the health and welfare of the mother exception. Who gets to decide what is necessary for said health and welfare? Even in a case where continuing the pregnancy would result in the death of both mother and child, or endanger the life of the mother, someone must make the determination if an exception to the abortion ban is to be permitted. Is it her doctor, or does she need a permission slip from a government doctor or committee? It might spawn a burgeoning business in selling permission slips. Giving it to government control would require a nation-wide network of government physicians. All decisions, including appeals, would need to be resolved quickly. This exception is a great moral dilemma that seems particularly ill-suited to any legal solution. When a law is adopted against the will of a significant portion of the people, many will choose to disregard the law. It can generate general disregard for the law and the government that made the law, whether the law be excessive taxation, 55 MPH maximum speed, alcohol prohibition, marijuana prohibition, or abortion prohibition. nolu chan  posted on  2015-05-23   2:42:15 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #90. To: nolu chan (#88) No law is respected. We have murders, rapes, robberies, thefts, drug trafficking, tax evasion, perjury, etc. No law is respected, and no law has ever been respected, if by respected we mean that everybody follows it. People always break the law when it is convenient to do so. We all do. This does not mean that law is useless, for it sets the standards and it allows for the punishment, often quite brutal, of those brazen enough to break it in the open, or stupid or unfortunate enough to get themselves caught. One of the strong reasons for having a Fourth Amendment type right of privacy with real teeth is that what people do on private property behind closed doors is practically impossible to track without intrusion. Police forces are always seeking ways to tear down every barrier to surveillance precisely because crime flourishes in private. But that is an important point of privacy: to act as a place where people can do as they please, crime, immorality, or otherwise, because it's private and nobody's business. The laws are enforceable in PUBLIC, but in private the inability to surveil EFFECTIVELY makes many of them unenforceable. And that's the way it ought to be. Finding ways to penetrate the veil of secrecy in private lives in order to "enforce the law" is a disastrous error that ought to be snuffed out. Confucius observed that one must not make the water too pure or the trees growing alongside the stream will cease to grow, and so it is likewise with the morals of the common people. He understood that if you get too obsessed with purifying individual morals, you'll kill society. You'll kill it because people are not moral, they don't actually follow the law and the moral codes, and society would collapse if they did. Society actually NEEDS the grease of immoral, illegal activity, the black market in some things, in order to provide both the grease for the wheels, at the margins of legal business, and to allow the people to blow off steam so they don't explode. Consider what happened when the Puritans won the English Civil War. They chopped off the King's head, they drove the surviving leaders of the Cavalier opposition over to the wilds of Virginia. They invaded Ireland and slaughtered a lot of Catholics in their righteous ire. They shut down all the playhouses, most of the brothels and taverns, stopped dancing and singing, and imposed the moral police everywhere. This was the English Commonwealth, the experiment of a Republic of sorts under Cromwell. And it was SO ODIOUS to the English people that as soon as Cromwell died, the Puritans were out, all of those activities were reopened, and the dead king's son was put on the Throne, the monarchy restored for good measure. And HE was permitted to root out the leaders who had executed his father and hang or behead them. Nobody stood up for the victorious Puritan leaders as they were arrested and executed. In other words, thanks to imposing moral purity, the Puritans actually LOST the English Civil War a decade after it ended, and ended up getting executed or driven off to America - even though they had won the battles - because the people had had enough of them and brought the King back. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-05-23   9:03:30 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #92. To: Vicomte13 (#90) When a law is adopted against the will of a significant portion of the people, many will choose to disregard the law. It can generate general disregard for the law and the government that made the law.... No law is respected. We have murders, rapes, robberies, thefts, drug trafficking, tax evasion, perjury, etc. No law is respected, and no law has ever been respected, if by respected we mean that everybody follows it. People always break the law when it is convenient to do so. We all do. I spoke to generating a general disregard for the law. While perfect conformance will never be acquired, general disregard can and has been acquired. The Declaration of Independence and the Ordinances of Secession come to mind. People do not always break or ignore the law when it is convenient to do so, and American conformance spawned an old European joke. Picture approaching a red light at a crossroads with clear vision in all directions and no other vehicles in sight. The American stops and waits for the light to turn green. The Brit stops, looks both ways, and goes. The Frenchman sees no traffic is coming and just continues. Most Americans comply with all nature of laws when it is not convenient to do so. When the law becomes sufficiently oppressive, it can cause massive resistance, either through ignoring the law, civil disobedience by massive public violation of the law, or violent resistence. If the drugs laws were enforced to the fullest extent possible, half the country might be in prison — but there are not enough cops, courts, or prisons. People today do not see pot as a crime any more than people of the prohibition era saw alcohol as a crime. Laws that criminalize the behavior of a majority of the citizenry are self-defeating. nolu chan  posted on  2015-05-26   18:16:02 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #94. To: nolu chan (#92) (Edited) The Supreme Court issued its most sweeping decision concerning the Eighteenth Amendment in June 1920. Seven cases, each raising fundamental questions concerning the constitutionality of the amendment, were consolidated by the Court and labeled the National Prohibition Cases. A host of highly regarded attorneys, including Elihu Root, William D. Guthrie, and Levy Mayer, as well as Herbert A. Rice and Thomas F. McCran, attorneys general for Rhode Island and New Jersey respectively, represented the appellants. The oral arguments lasted for five days, an unusually long time for even the most important cases. Attorney General Rice began by arguing that the amendment invaded the sovereignty of Rhode Island and her people, an invasion not contemplated by the amending clause of the Constitution. Rhode Island had not ratified the Eighteenth Amendment. The amending power, Rice contended, was provided to allow for the correction of errors in the fundamental instrument of government. The first ten amendments were adopted to insure against the encroachment by the federal government upon state functions and powers. If the amending power were to be construed as to allow any type of amendment, the boundary between federal and state authority could be shifted at will, and the people of a state would be at the mercy of others in matters of political institutions and personal rights. Attorney General McCran, arguing along the same lines, stressed tha4 the Tenth Amendment reserved all unenumerated powers to the states and to the people. The right to surrender such rights and powers, McCran contended, belonged exclusively to the people themselves and not their legislative representatives." The argument of Elihu Root attracted the most attention. The former Secretary of War, Secretary of State, and senator represented a New Jersey brewer. Drys jested that "Hires Root Beer" had been changed to "Beer Hires Root," but they were clearly worried about the impact this distinguished attorney might have on the Court. Root asserted that the Eighteenth Amendment was simply unconstitutional. The substantive portion of the so-called Eighteenth Amendment, he said, did not relate to the powers or organization of government, as constitutional provisions ordinarily do. Rather, it was a direct act of legislation. He denied that the amending provision of the Constitution, Article V, authorized this type of amendment. Root pointed out that if the validity of the prohibition amendment were to be upheld, its repeal could perpetually be prevented by a minority. Repeal could be accomplished only by the passage of another constitutional amendment which, of course, would require the approval of three-fourths of the states. He distinguished between a constitutional amendment which granted the Congress power to prohibit the use of intoxicating liquors and an amendment which required such a prohibition. An amendment of the former sort would leave the question within the control of a majority of the people, but one of the latter type, such as the current amendment, thwarted the democratic process. Finally, Root contended, the Eighteenth Amendment undermined a fundamental principle of the federal system by directly invading the police powers of the states and encroaching upon the right of local self-government. If the amendment were upheld, he told the Court, the states would no longer be indestructible and the federal system of government could be completely subverted. " Root from the outset opposed the form, spirit, purpose, and effect of the Eighteenth Amendment. He told friends that its denial of personal liberty, its potential for eroding respect for law, and its alteration of the balance between local and national government alarmed him." Most members of the bar, however, did not share Root's belief that the amendment was unconstitutional. Even his colleague William D. Guthrie thought his argument weak." But Root gave a memorable peroration: If your Honors shall find a way to declare this so-called Amendment to the Federal Constitution valid, then the Government of the United States as it has been known to us and to our forefathers will have ceased to exist. Your Honors will have discovered a new legislative authority hitherto unknown to the Constitution and quite untrammelled by any of its limitations. You will have declared that two thirds of a quorum of each House of the Congress, plus a majority of a quorum of each of the two Houses of the Legislatures of three fourths of the States, may enact any legislation they please without any reference to the limitations of the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights itself. In that case, Your Honors, John Marshall need never have sat upon that bench." Neither Root's reasoning nor his emotional oratory moved the Court. On June 7, 1920, it rejected every argument of the appellants in the National Prohibition Cases. Unanimously upholding the constitutionality of the Eighteenth Amendment, the justices also approved the method by which the state legislatures had ratified it. They held that the prohibition embodied in the amendment was within the power to amend reserved by Article V of the Constitution, and that therefore the amendment must be respected and observed. Commenting upon the role of the states under the amendment, the Court declared that the phrase 'concurrent power to enforce" did not include the power to defeat or frustrate prohibition. Concurrent power did not mean joint power or divided power, nor did it require that congressional legislation to enforce the amendment be approved by the states. The power to prohibit granted to Congress was not exclusive; it could be exercised by the states as well, but the law did embrace the entire territory of the United States and could not be avoided by any state. " The National Prohibition Cases decision, therefore, resoundingly endorsed the new and untried law. The announcement of the Supreme Court decisions of June 1920 completed the process of embedding national prohibition in the law of the United States. Drys, as they won victory after victory in the Congress, in the state legislatures, and in the Supreme Court, easily brushed all opposition aside with compelling arguments about the benefits to be obtained from the reform. The prohibitionist success seemed total and permanent. Elihu Root had pointed out to the Supreme Court that once the amendment was emplanted in the Constitution, removing it would probably be impossible. No amendment to the Constitution, once adopted, had ever been repealed. Both supporters and critics of the law recognized this. To its advocates, the reform brought joy. Their arguments appeared to have the support of legislatures, courts, and the masses. To opponents of prohibition, the loss seemed irrevocable. Their objections had been ignored; their influence appeared nonexistent. National prohibition took effect at midnight, January 16, 1920, one year after ratification of the Eighteenth Amendment. America entered the new age quietly, accepting the law as a great step forward or as a fait accompli and in either case believing that its reversal was quite out of the question. The following morning the New York Times reported, "John Barleycorn Died Peacefully At The Toll of 12. " Had Mr. Barleycorn been in a position to reply, he might have chosen Mark Twain's famous response, "The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated." www.druglibrary.o rg/schaffer/history/rnp/RNP1.html tpaine  posted on  2015-05-26   20:59:19 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   Replies to Comment # 94.         There are no replies to Comment # 94. End Trace Mode for Comment # 94. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]  Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com