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

Calexit gets go-ahead to start collecting signatures

Uranus Smells Like Rotten Eggs

Suicide of the West HOW THE REBIRTH OF TRIBALISM, POPULISM, NATIONALISM, AND IDENTITY POLITICS IS DESTROYING AMERICAN DEMOCRACY By JONAH GOLDBERG s

Total Control: New Measures Toward Global Totalitarianism

Civic Anarchism and Statism: I Believe in the State

'A Man Without Courage': Dershowitz Slams Comey for Leaking Trump Memos

Comey, the memos and the question of what’s classified

The 10 Highest BACs Ever Recorded (You are supposed to be dead at 0.4)

Woman fined $500 for saving free Delta Air Lines apple

Under attack, the FBI becomes a partisan battleground

Dad, Why Do I Have To Go To School?

Michigan town’s feud over military gear gets ugly

Democrats are getting desperate as Mueller stalls

Entire County Refuses to Obey New Gun Control Law, Declares Itself Gun Owner Sanctuary

Body Cam Shows Cops Never Got Out of Car to Look for Trapped Boy as He Died Right By Them

Penn State's 98-Year-Old Outing Club Is No Longer Allowed to Go Outside

14 Years Ago, Pat Tillman Was Killed and Gov’t Covered Up the Truth to His Death to Sell War

Strange Sounds in the Sky 2018

Strange Sounbds in the Sky 2018

Why I Won't Read James Comey's Book

The Sequel on The Conservative Cave on 22 Apr 2018

Hundreds of Muslims from Bangladesh breaching US border at Laredo, Texas

Revealed: Robert Mueller's FBI Repeatedly Abused Prosecutorial Discretion

A Pelosi joke

Mitt Romney fails to secure Utah GOP nomination, will face primary

Giuliani Looks To Swiftly End Mueller's Investigation

Man makes pipe-guns from scrap, sells them to gun “buyback” program for $300

Rocket Man no more: North Korea suspending nuclear and ICBM testing

Meanwhile in Sweden: Shootings And Grenade Attacks Are So Common, the Media Doesn’t Bother to Report Them Anymore (VIDEO)

Interview With Boy In ‘Chemical Attack’ Video: ‘We Didn’t See Any Chemical Attack Symptoms’

The Comey Memos Read Like The Diary Entries Of A Young Teenager

The Democratic (Democrat-Communist) Party filed a lawsuit alleging a conspiracy by Russian officials, the Trump campaign and Wikileaks to damage the Clinton campaign

Brooklyn postal worker arrested after 17,000 pieces of undelivered mail found

Facebook Suspends (Black) Conservative Comedian For Posting Abusive Messages Sent To Him

Bitter lessons 25 years after Waco, Texas, siege

Woman Calls Police Over Man Wearing Pro-Gun T-Shirt At Park

On This Day in 1914, US Military Slaughtered Kids in Colorado and JD Rockefeller Had Media Cover It Up

The Democrats’ circumstantial case against the president who beat them

DNC files suit alleging Russia, the Trump campaign, and WikiLeaks conspired to disrupt the 2016 election

The Oklahoma City Bombing - Were there additional explosive charges and additional bombers?

23 Years Later: The Oklahoma City Bombing Story You Were Never Told About

In Louisiana, Threatening to File a Complaint Against Police Can Lead to a Five-Year Prison Sentence

This Is The Problem: Out of Top 100 News Outlets, Not a Single One Questioned Syrian Attack

Child ‘Victim’ of Alleged Syrian Gas Attack Speaks Out, Says He Was Given Food to Make the Video

Police Go Undercover for Months, Spend Thousands to Bust FSU Quarterback with Tiny Bit of Weed

Flashback: Vice President Joe Biden: No improper motive by feds at Waco, the Davidians “committed suicide”

US Intel Officials Just Admitted U.S. Bombed Syria with No Proof of Sarin Attack

If you like eating dogs, prepare for a ban

Men arrested at Starbucks were there for business meeting hoping to change 'our lives’

640 pounds of high explosives stolen from pipeline site


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

The Establishments war on Donald Trump
See other The Establishments war on Donald Trump Articles

Title: Woke Conservatives And The Awesome Power Of Not Caring
Source: Townhall
URL Source: https://townhall.com/columnists/kur ... e-power-of-not-caring-n2420738
Published: Dec 11, 2017
Author: Kurt Schlicter
Post Date: 2017-12-12 06:44:49 by Tooconservative
Keywords: None
Views: 194
Comments: 28

Have you noticed that if you fail to do, think, and vote exactly the way that the liberals and their Fredocon minions demand, you’re a racist, sexist, homophobic, child molesting, greedy, NRA terrorist determined to murder kids? Yeah, you probably have. And you’ve probably also realized that if you do everything that the liberals and their Never Trump minions demand, you’re still a racist, sexist, homophobic, child molesting, greedy, NRA terrorist determined to murder kids.

When you understand that, you’re on your way to being conservative woke.

And when you’re conservative woke, you’re ready to deploy the most powerful non-bullet firing weapon in your liberty-loving arsenal – your devastating capability not to give a damn what the liberals and their Conservative, Inc., cruise-shilling Benedict Arnold buddies say.

When you don’t care anymore, they got nothing.

What are these whiny weasels going to do to you anyway? Not like you? Think bad things about you? Taunt you a second time?

Look. Learn. Accept the harsh truth.

They hate you.

They hate you.

They hate you.

No matter how you try to please them, regardless of whether or not you comply with their every command, that will never change.

They hate you. Govern yourself accordingly.

Don’t believe me? Then you are not yet fully conservative woke. Try spending about five minutes on social media listening to them (my Twitter timeline is great for this) and they’ll tell you themselves what they want – they want you enslaved or dead. Oh, the nice ones are willing to let you die off on your own, but there are plenty of them who want to speed up the process. Lucky for us, the flaccid collection of shiftless Millennials, fops, femboys, feminists, and groping weirdoes that makes up the left can’t tell you which end of a gun goes bang – though their ineptitude is kind of irrelevant since we Normals have all the guns anyway.

All they have are words, and they still think we’re still back in the day where some liberal accusing us of one of their thought-crimes was enough to send us scampering.

Oh no, they called us racist! Better do what they say to prove we’re not!

Oh no, they called us sexist! Better do what they say to prove we’re not!

Oh no, they called us greedy! Better do what they say to prove we’re not!

Oh no, they called us … hey, wait a minute. We keep doing what they say to prove we’re not what they say we are and they just keep hating us!

It’s all a lie, a scam calculated to play on our morality and good nature, a grift designed to keep us trying to kick the Lucy Football that is the liberal’s love.

Dude, they aren’t ever going to let you kick it, so why try? After decades of chasing after their approval, of giving a rat’s Schumer about what the New York Times and the Washington Post think, of letting these bums squat in our heads rent-free, we real conservatives got woke.

Hey, liberals. Hey, sanctimonious Never Trump dorks. Here’s our counter-offer: How about you go pound sand and we do whatever the hell we want?

This counter-offer is non-negotiable.

And they make it so very easy for us because every single thing they say about us is a damned lie.

Every.

Single.

Thing.

The liberal elite and their toadies screech, “If you don’t give us a critical Senate seat while we tread water on dealing with Dem icons like Al “Get Around To Resigning Someday Wink Wink” Franken and Bob “Brotherhood of the Traveling Pervs” Menendez, you totally support pedophiles!” Except we don’t support pedophiles – when’s the last time we gave one a primetime standing O? We just don’t think shaky claims from 40 years ago that include admitted fraud being pushed by our enemies morally mandates our ritual senatorial suicide.

The liberal elite and their toadies screech, “You’re racist because you don’t want to give away American citizenship to anyone who can manage to avoid being caught wading across the Rio Grande!” Except we love immigrants who respect our laws and come here legally and want to be Americans. We just don’t want to keep paying, in money and in blood, for uninvited freeloaders who want to turn our country into the same kind of Third World dump these illegals crawled out of.

The liberal elite and their toadies screech, “Because you NRA people won’t disarm, you have the blood of children on your hands!” every time some militant atheist, BLM jerk, or angry Obama fan goes on a killing spree at a gun free zone. Except we don’t have blood on our hands. We’re the ones who carry guns to protect people, or send off family members to do so – not a lot of cops or infantrymen come out of Beverly Hills and Georgetown. We just don’t think that we are morally obligated to make it easier for criminals to murder us in order to please a bunch of snooty libs who don’t like us having a last ditch veto over their goal of Venezuelaizing America.

Wokeness to elite lies is now central to who conservatives are, and the True Conservatives™ are furious that we’ve stopped caring. They hate that the primary principle of conservatism is no longer losing like well-behaved little wusses – that was their only real talent and if we don’t intend to lose anymore, we don’t need that crew of smarmy losers anymore. The 2016 primary was a battle between the Jeb!-loving “Oh noes, we needs to get the approval of the people who hate us” clique, and the “Oh, I got your approval right here” contingent that elected Donald Trump. That whole trying to please the people who will always hate us thing? That’s not a conservative thing anymore, except for a few suck-ups like Ben Sasse and other the tiresome members of Team Sanctimony.

They fuss, “We’re better than that!” and now we just laugh.

Yeah, I think we’ll stop trying to please you and do what’s in our interests instead. Why the sad face? You mad, bro?

Here’s the bottom line.

We.

Don’t.

Care.

What.

You.

Say.

Anymore.

And Donald J. Trump is the avatar of our not caring. Remember, he knows these elitist goofs better than we ever will, and no one has less respect for them. He was in there among them for decades as they sucked up to him and his dough. He dealt with, exploited, and now endlessly owns, the pompous, arrogant, and impotent press.

He knows exactly who these would be arbiters of morality and decency are. And The Donald is not impressed.

These are the same people who constructed, out of whole cloth, the narrative that we are somehow morally obligated to give up a red state Senate seat because Gloria Allred dragged out some sad-faced woman with a story and a yearbook. Except the yearbook was tampered with – just like the Roy Moore Truthers said. No, our glorious press didn’t uncover that lie. But then, the press didn’t want to.

What about the Washington Post and its alleged “scrupulous reporting?” Turns out it’s likely that this whole thing is a Jeb!boy hit job. No shock – the corrupt establishment has been working with the corrupt press to claw back the power we relieved them of since we rejected Felonia Milhous von Pantsuit. The Fredocons and liberal journalists want respect, but they deserve only contempt – and woke conservatives are delivering.

Say, who’s ahead on embarrassing corrections regarding the Russiafail fake scandal this week? WaPo? CNN? The Times? Because all we see are giant headlines about how this is the end for Trump, followed a few hours or days later by sheepish, page B-26 corrections and then hilarious tweets from Trump rubbing it in.

Mr. President, please never stop tweeting.

Here’s a lesson for our would-be moral instructors. See, the thing with moral authority is that you don’t get any more after you set fire to what you have. And our media/political/Hollywood elite’s moral authority is a raging inferno.

Well, now it’s time for America’s Normals to instruct you elitist jerks: We just don’t care what you say anymore.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: Tooconservative (#0)

When you don’t care anymore, they got nothing.

EXACTLY!

Seriously - that's EXACTLY right.

Consider how effect the "I don't care" mindset has been at killing off the abusive old Church. The Church (I do not speak simply of the Catholic here) used to burn people for witchcraft and heresy. Hang people. Do terrible things to them. And then people stopped caring about it. They DIDN'T stop believing in God - though the Church equated the failure to listen to or care about the Church with the loss of faith in God, but that was not true - they simply stopped believing in the Church. So it withered.

Conservatives painted themselves into a corner, and the liberals helped them do it. Of course, the man painted into the corner can always say "Fuck it" and walk across the wet paint, and decide he doesn't care about the smudge.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-12-12   6:49:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: Vicomte13 (#1)

I think Schlicter is one of the most talented op-ed writers on the Right.

He really does paint a picture of the pro-Trump mindset, in a way that few other writers have tried to do. Schlicter really gets it.

The Left and libmedia are just appalled that Republican voters have learned to be as shamelessly partisan as the Dems have been for decades.

Trump's steady performance with conservative judicial nominees, improved enforcement at the border and expanding to inland areas, recognition of Jerusalem, and his massive efforts at deregulation and being pro-business help to keep his voters loyal and indifferent to what the libs are shrieking about in any given week.

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-12-12   7:19:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: Tooconservative (#2)

I just woke up. I was already awake too.

A K A Stone  posted on  2017-12-12   7:37:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: Tooconservative (#0)

When you don’t care anymore, they got nothing.

I wish. The problem is, they have the courts on their side.

Sit back and think about the progress liberals have made -- starting with Roe v. Wade in 1973. It hasn't been through legislation written by representatives of the people. It's been through the courts.

Abortion. Gay marriage. Gays in the military. The definition of rape. The definition of sexual abuse/harassment. The definition of racism. The erosion of religious freedom. The erosion of free speech/creation of hate speech.

These changes were not made by any legislation. They were made by the courts.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-12-12   11:14:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: misterwhite, A K A Stone, Vicomte13 (#4) (Edited)

If you need another heaping dose of I-don't-care-what-you-think, the clergy of Alabama are setting a sterling example.

TheFederalist:

Roy Moore’s Core Supporters In Alabama Don’t Care What You Think

As Alabama’s special Senate election draws near, pastors speak out about why they’re standing by Roy Moore in defiance of the GOP establishment.

The short version: no matter what Moore has or hasn't done, it's not as bad as electing a pro-abortion fanatic like Jones.

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-12-12   11:25:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: Tooconservative (#0)

you’re still a racist, sexist, homophobic, child molesting, greedy, NRA terrorist determined to murder kids.

They hate you.

If you are a racist, sexist, homophobic, child molesting, greedy, NRA terrorist d deter dete d deter determined to murder kids, everyone except other degenerates are correct to hate you.

It doesn't matter if you care or not.

Mr. President, please never stop tweeting.

Yes, please! American voters are watching and your approval rating is ta tanking....

328 and counting

"we are tartets from evil doers!!!" [ and ] U looked up birfer on the dcitionary. It isn't a movie.

"Listen piece of shit. Call me anti American again and your're banned. I don't like you." - aka stoned -

Jameson  posted on  2017-12-12   12:10:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: Tooconservative (#5)

The short version: no matter what Moore has or hasn't done, it's not as bad as electing a pro-abortion fanatic like Jones.

Even you would have to admit Moore is the lesser of two evils. Plus, we KNOW Jones is pro-abortion. Moore hasn't admitted to anything, and all we have is a he-said-she-said account of some incident that may or may not have happened 40 years ago.

Geez Louise. The guy is running for Senator. Can't we have a little proof before we condemn him?

misterwhite  posted on  2017-12-12   13:19:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: misterwhite (#7)

Even you would have to admit Moore is the lesser of two evils. Plus, we KNOW Jones is pro-abortion.

I'm not sure why you included the "even you" qualifier. I don't think I wrote anything disagreeing with the writer's central premise. Or with the 'Bama preachers who also don't care what the staff of WaPo thinks about anything.

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-12-12   18:55:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: misterwhite (#4)

Abortion. Gay marriage. Gays in the military. The definition of rape. The definition of sexual abuse/harassment. The definition of racism. The erosion of religious freedom. The erosion of free speech/creation of hate speech.

These changes were not made by any legislation. They were made by the courts.

Yes, they were. And the Supreme Court that made every one of those decisions was Republican controlled.

Roe was a long time ago.

The rest of those decisions were made by Reagan-era and later Supreme Court. The Republicans have put nine new justices on the high court from Reagan forward, and the court has decided all of those things.

This right here is why I don't trust the Republicans. A litmus test for justices on key issues is easy to do: the Democrats do it, and their justices NEVER break ranks on any key issue, not ever. No Democrat justice from Reagan's day forward is ever a "swing" vote. They are subject to a litmus test before they are elevated, and they reliably always vote the position of their party.

Republicans, on the other hand, do all of that crap.

Now, some would say that the Republican justices are more independent. I don't believe it for a second. I think there IS a litmus test applies by Republican leaders. Ir'a just hidden, because the Republican party, internally, in its power structure, DOES NOT BELIEVE what they campaign on to get conservatives to vote for them. The inner GOP believes in low taxes for the rich, with burden shifting down into the middle and working class. They believe in free trade with China. They do not care about industrial, blue-state unemployment. They want low taxes and as little social state as they can get, but they want very high spending on military contracts, and they want a steady burn in overseas affairs to justify it. The rich are liberal on abortion and gay rights, and intend to fully preserve Roe and ensure that gays can marry, serve in the military, etc. They have to hide their intentions on these things, and they do with a shoulder shrug: "Well, the courts, you know, those wacky judges!"

Like Chief Justice Roberts' switch that saved Obamacare, and then the Republican Congress' inability to get the killing of Obamacare passed.

McConnell's "anybody but Moore" approach worked. He retains command of a reduced Senate majority.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-12-13   6:34:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: Vicomte13 (#9)

Yes, they were. And the Supreme Court that made every one of those decisions was Republican controlled.

Maybe Republican appointed.

But my point remains -- we've shifted from a representative republic to a judicial oligarchy.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-12-13   12:19:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: misterwhite (#10)

we've shifted from a representative republic to a judicial oligarchy

Yes, a "kritarchy".

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-12-13   12:45:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: Vicomte13 (#11)

Yes, a "kritarchy".

ie., Libertarianism.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-12-13   13:14:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: misterwhite (#12)

Yes, a "kritarchy". ie., Libertarianism.

That's a really interesting connection you've made.

I'll have to think more on it. I think you've touched on a way of looking at the libertarian phenomenon that hadn't considered before.

Libertarianism is rooted in private contract as the basis for life, and that's what a life ruled by private contract really means, isn't it?: an life in whose final authority is the judge who resolves contract disputes.

Hmmmmmm.

Very good. Thank you.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-12-13   14:54:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: Vicomte13 (#13)

Kritarchy would be the legal system under Libertarianism since natural law would govern behavior.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-12-13   16:02:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: misterwhite (#14)

And the only authority would be judges. Yes, I see it. I wonder if Libertarians have worked out what happens when some powerful, rich or popular person simply defies the judge, as noble lords frequently did. Where there are contracts and judges without power, you end up with feudalism. Pretty sure that’s not an improvement over liberal democracy with its armed enforcement of law.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-12-13   21:47:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: Vicomte13 (#15)

And the only authority would be judges.

Sort of. The "judges" are basically people hired to sit in judgement on a particular case. Their impartiality, reputation (and fee -- split 50-50) would be based on past judgements.

Kind of a "Judge Judy" atmosphere where both sides agree ahead of time to honor whatever decision is made.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-12-14   11:08:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: misterwhite (#16) (Edited)

Kind of a "Judge Judy" atmosphere where both sides agree ahead of time to honor whatever decision is made.

Yeah, but Judge Judy, and all other arbitration systems, only work if there is a legal system lurking behind them that is willing to enforce arbitral awards through the regular courts. The courts love arbitration, because it reduces their workload tremendously. Arbitration has only really exploded and become viable since courts decided to enforce arbitration awards.

Take away that enforcement mechanism, and many angry losing parties on Judge Judy would never pay a penny. This has always been the fly in the ointment of libertarianism. If I am a strong party, I may consent to a tribunal because I think I will win, but If I lose, I may just walk away and refuse to honor the court. THEN WHAT?

LIbertarianism cannot adequately answer that, because they won't admit that ultimately rules have to be enforced by the threat of violence and, often enough, actual violence.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-12-14   23:51:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: Vicomte13, misterwhite, who both misunderstand libertarianism. (#17) (Edited)

the legal system under Libertarianism, -- since natural law would govern behavior, --- (would be anarchy?) --- misterwhite

This has always been the fly in the ointment of libertarianism. If I am a strong party, I may consent to a tribunal because I think I will win, but If I lose, I may just walk away and refuse to honor the court. THEN WHAT? --- LIbertarianism cannot adequately answer that, because they won't admit that ultimately rules have to be enforced by the threat of violence and, often enough, actual violence. --- Vicomte13

You two are arguing about how many of what you imagine to be libertarian devils/angels can sit on the head of a pin..

American libertarians have no problems with our Constitution, or its enforcement of our rule of (constitutional) law..

The problems arise when you fellas interpret what is constitutional behaviour. - - Inevitably, you attempt to claim that all levels of our governments can ignore fundamental, inalienable rights, in order to enforce the will of the majority..

That is socialistic democratic theory, and we live in a Constitutional Republic.

tpaine  posted on  2017-12-15   3:40:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: tpaine (#18)

The problems arise when you fellas interpret what is constitutional behaviour. ... That is socialistic democratic theory, and we live in a Constitutional Republic.

Everybody has his own interpretation, you included.

Within this Constitutional Republic of ours, the Supreme Court has the final say as to what the Constitution means.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-12-15   9:04:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: Vicomte13 (#19)

American libertarians have no problems with our Constitution, or its enforcement of our rule of (constitutional) law..

The problems arise when you fellas interpret what is constitutional behaviour. - - Inevitably, you attempt to claim that all levels of our governments can ignore fundamental, inalienable rights, in order to enforce the will of the majority..

That is socialistic democratic theory, and we live in a Constitutional Republic. --- tpaine

Everybody has his own interpretation, you included.

Within this Constitutional Republic of ours, the Supreme Court has the final say as to what the Constitution means. --- Vicomte13

The Scotus issues opinions about constitutional issues; -- those opinions do NOT change the meaning of our constitution, as you well know.

This is not my interpretation, it is a constitutional fact.. Only valid amendments affect changes.

I find it odd that you agree with misterwhites irrational lies about libertarian principles. Why is that?

tpaine  posted on  2017-12-15   9:24:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: tpaine (#20)

I find it odd that you agree with misterwhites irrational lies about libertarian principles. Why is that?

I don't know if I agree with misterwhite's views of libertarianism or not. We have not had a conversation about it.

He responded to something I said about rule by judges, remarking that that's the Libertarian ideal.

I thought that was an interesting thought. given my own views of libertarianism.

I've known and debated libertarians, also pacifists, since law school. I have a lot of sympathy for their views. But in any system of thought must come the place of irreducible power, else the system collapses. Over the years I have found it very difficult to get to this vital point of libertarianism.

That's how we get there. I don't know what misterwhite thinks about libertarianism in general, and would not presume to put words in his mouth. That it of its nature leads to kritarchy is where he and I intersected.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-12-15   10:48:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: Vicomte13 (#19)

Everybody has his own interpretation, you included.

True, but the difference is he believes his interpretation should prevail.

Try debating him. After a couple of hundred posts, he always ends the debate by saying, "Well, the Supreme Court was wrong". Every single time.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-12-15   10:52:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: Vicomte13 (#21)

I don't know what misterwhite thinks about libertarianism in general ...

In general, I think Libertarianism looks good on paper but would never work in any functioning society. It could work in a society consisting only of responsible adults, isolated from foreign actors wishing it harm.

But Libertarianism limits laws to those restricting behavior which causes harm through force or fraud. If the behavior does not cause harm, it's allowed.

You would not want to raise children in a society like that.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-12-15   11:03:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: Vicomte13 (#17)

LIbertarianism cannot adequately answer that, because they won't admit that ultimately rules have to be enforced by the threat of violence and, often enough, actual violence.

They do by limiting government functions to the protection of citizens from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud as defined by property laws.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-12-15   11:23:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: Vicomte13 (#21)

Within this Constitutional Republic of ours, the Supreme Court has the final say as to what the Constitution means. --- Vicomte13

The Scotus issues opinions about constitutional issues; -- those opinions do NOT change the meaning of our constitution, as you well know.

This is not my interpretation, it is a constitutional fact.. Only valid amendments affect changes. ---- tpaine

I've known and debated libertarians, also pacifists, since law school. I have a lot of sympathy for their views. But in any system of thought must come the place of irreducible power, else the system collapses. Over the years I have found it very difficult to get to this vital point of libertarianism.

What's your point? Libertarians do not deny that our governments have "irreducible power" to enforce the rule of (constitutional) laws. ---

--- The debate is over our governments attempts to pass and enforce unconstitutional 'laws'.

Apparently, you agree with misterwhite that Scotus decisions can give governments the power to pass/enforce laws that infringe on individual inalienable rights.

I hope you can say it isn't so..

tpaine  posted on  2017-12-15   13:39:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: misterwhite (#22)

The Scotus issues opinions about constitutional issues; -- those opinions do NOT change the meaning of our constitution, as you well know.

This is not my interpretation, it is a constitutional fact.. Only valid amendments affect changes. --- tpaine

misterwhite --- he (tpaine) believes his interpretation should prevail.

Try debating him. After a couple of hundred posts, he always ends the debate by saying, "Well, the Supreme Court was wrong". Every single time.

You believe that Scotus opinions about specific cases can allow our legal system /legislators to pass and enforce unconstitutional infringements on inalienable individual rights.

Only a mental health professional could explain why you have these delusions. Get help...

tpaine  posted on  2017-12-15   14:00:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: tpaine (#25)

Apparently, you agree with misterwhite that Scotus decisions can give governments the power to pass/enforce laws that infringe on individual inalienable rights.

I hope you can say it isn't so..

Do I agree descriptively or normatively?

Descriptively, I observe that the Supreme Court DOES determine what the Constitution means, and that all of the other branches of government, however sullenly, accept that and act that way, as does the populace.

Normatively speaking, as far as what OUGHT to be, I note that - in theory - the Supreme Court is limited through the electoral process by the appointments clause, and more directly, through the impeachment power of the Senate, and the ability of Congress + People, or the States in Convention, to amend the Constitution.

Practically speaking, it is much easier for the Supreme Court to rule than for it to be overruled, and much easier for government officials at all level to obey the court rather than defy it, becoming outlaws under the conventional understanding of our people and officials, and nevertheless prevail in the end in overturning the entrenched system. That's never happened yet, and doesn't seem very likely.

Idealistically speaking, it would be great if judges, Presidents, legislators and cops all played fair and respected the rules of our civil structure, and considered maintaining the ideal structure to be of greater importance than winning any particular battle.

But given the way that men really are, that is a forlorn hope and I know it.

If you're asking what I personally would like to see, well, that's really just an unrewarding (for me) creative writing exercise. There's no chance that I'll have things the way I want them, but it's certain that if I express what I want that I will make enemies. So what's in it for me but pain?

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-12-15   16:52:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: Vicomte13 (#27)

Apparently, you agree with misterwhite that Scotus decisions can give governments the power to pass/enforce laws that infringe on individual inalienable rights. ---- I hope you can say it isn't so.. ----- tpaine

Do I agree descriptively or normatively?

Descriptively, I observe that the Supreme Court DOES determine what the Constitution means, and that all of the other branches of government, however sullenly, accept that and act that way, as does the populace.

Normatively speaking, as far as what OUGHT to be, I note that - in theory - the Supreme Court is limited through the electoral process by the appointments clause, and more directly, through the impeachment power of the Senate, and the ability of Congress + People, or the States in Convention, to amend the Constitution.

Weird comments, normatively speaking. You seem to be claiming that the Scotus has the power to (in theory, for instance) ban/confiscate firearms, -- and the only recourse would be to impeach the Justices and/or to amend the Constitution to negate the Scotus decision..

Bizarre... Where do theories like this come from? Is this an example of Napoleonic legal thinking?

tpaine  posted on  2017-12-15   19:18:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/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