• A speech from all the way back in 2007. One I had not heard.

    • It seems everywhere I turn these days, I encounter the message that our dreams and endeavors for resurrecting the country we love, into something even somewhat resembling the halcyon days of our youth, much less the vision of our Founders and it’s magnificent first century, are a complete waste of time, which I have precious little left to…[Read more]

    • P.S. – Don’t focus on the author’s emphasis on AGW. I am personally of the opinion that it will be ice, not fire, that will ultimately terminate this epoch. Yet, multiple existential threats to our rapidly crumbling civilization, which cannot be stopped by human intervention, anymore than macro climate change could, are poised to destroy it long…[Read more]

    • An author with a healthy grip on the hubris of humanity. Yes we must learn to die because we will and we are the only one it matters to. I have given a great amount of time contemplating humanities insignificance both within this world and within all that is. We are but a second in time over the millennium. A speck of dust within the cosmos.…[Read more]

  • ◄Dave► posted a new activity comment 4 years, 3 months ago

    Yep. I don’t much like their food; but they have the best coffee in town for 95 cents for seniors, free refills, and free WIFI. While sitting there with my iPad enjoying my coffee, I will occasionally decide to get some fries or an ice cream. It has occurred to me how convenient it would be if they had a smartphone/tablet app that allowed one to o…[Read more]

  • This activity thread has been archived here. Lets move future comments to the post format.

     

    Here’s my outside bet for 2016. What say you?

    • Bear in mind this interview is well over a year old.

      • Good interview. We could certainly do a lot worse. ◄Dave►

      • Very good interview. It is only because I know of his willingness to use government to impose his religious views on me that I am so much against him. He talks a good conservative game, especially here. But he will use the feds to bring back churches into the mainstream to practice their beliefs using my tax money.

        They are pretty much all…[Read more]

        • “I think that I remember sometime hearing him wax eloquently regarding the teaching of creationism in schools.”
          Maybe so, but have you ever heard him “wax eloquent” about stopping the teaching of Darwinism?

          Larry what are your thoughts on using the federal government to STOP states from passing laws that they see fit? We can’t disdain government…[Read more]

          • Chris….to be clear…I believe that government works best that is closest to the citizens so favor a smaller fed and states that focus on using municipal and county governments for implementation of state laws as much as possible.

            Even so, I do not expect the Federal elected officials to send money to the states without developing rules as to…[Read more]

            • Larry, you occasionally display an authoritarian streak, with acquiescence to Federal power it was never meant to have, which sometimes disturbs me. Have you ever read my “Sovereign Rights” essay? ( http://www.thoughtsaloud.com/essays/sovereign-rights/ ) I am curious, in what way would you take issue with my understanding of the hierarchy of…[Read more]

              • On about the feds doling out funds to states. EXACTLY! Where do they get the funds from in the first place and why? Any time anyone wants to send me $100 so I can send them back $50 and tell them how to spend it I’m all in for that.

                Sure some states get more than they send but they still have those strings. That’s how wealth redistribution and…[Read more]

                • As often as not, it is seed money to start another perpetual bureaucracy for a redundant program, which the State taxpayers will be on the hook for, once the initial Federal participation is phased out. Why the State politicians are so often shortsighted and keep falling for this, is beyond me. ◄Dave►

                  • It’s the carrot the feds use to get states to cede power. States can’t print money and many if not most are constitutionally bound to a balanced budget. They balance them on the federal teat. They are addicted to it.

                    • Understood; but that is like balancing one’s home budget by borrowing from a credit card, with no regard for how the increased monthly payments are going to be met, once the card reaches its limit. Shortsighted and irresponsible… ◄Dave►

                      • That’s where the senators bringing home the bacon comes in. Each state is betting that they can come out ahead at the expense of the other states. They all have to suck up as much gravy as they can so when the check finally comes they weren’t the ones ordering off the kiddie menu while the rest ate surf and turf.

                        • Yeah, but it wasn’t even mealtime, and nobody was hungry. They are partaking of the feast simply because it appears to be free, and conveniently delete the fact that their grand-kids will eventually get the tab. It is insanity. ◄Dave►

                    • …and another great example of the truisms that nothing is free and credit is the modern form of slavery. 🙂 ◄Dave►

              • I just stumbled across this link: ( http://politicaloutcast.com/2013/07/are-states-bound-by-supreme-court-decisions-lets-ask-thomas-jefferson/ ), which is timely to this discussion.

                It seems TJ would agree with me. I was particularly taken with:

                Jefferson wrote the following in the 1798 Kentucky Resolutions: 1. “Resolved, That the several…

                [Read more]

              • Dave….read the 14th amendment….at least twice….

                • I presume you are referring to section 2, and my assertion that there is no Federal right to vote in the Constitution. I suggest you read it again. Having freed the slaves, given them citizenship and equal protection under the law, and increased their value for the purposes of a census count to a full person rather than 3/5 of a person, it says…[Read more]

                  • All I see is a guarantee of equal treatment under the law. It doesn’t specify state or federal law and certainly no place in there does it assert that federal law is superior. To me that suggests that if the SCOTUS hears a case they must take into consideration the state laws which apply and only insure that equal treatment is being applied under…[Read more]

                • Once more I’ll say…for the last time….I want a smaller fed and more state and local control. Any interpretations by you’all to suggest otherwise is wrong.

                  • I am not quite sure what you are referring to; but any suggestion that I ever thought otherwise would also be wrong. It is quite normal now, for folks to think of the States as political subdivisions of the Federal government, and their citizens as its ‘subjects.’ I’d venture to say at least 95% of Americans unthinkingly accept that lie; but it…[Read more]

                • Personally, I don’t have any friends at NPR. I wouldn’t want to be friends with Boies; he has always been a little smarmy for my taste. 🙂

                  He is certainly wrong about one thing. Gays will not be the last minority needing to use the equal protection clause. Waiting in the wings are the polygamists. Then, I may decide that there are tax…[Read more]

                  • This one sentence speaks volumes.

                    “Eventually, the amendment would be interpreted to apply most provisions in the Bill of Rights to the states as well as the national government.”

                    Key word interpreted.

                    Now why wouldn’t a federal court “interpret” a law in a manner that would increase it’s power?

                    So it guarantees equal treatment under the…[Read more]

                    • Well said. Don’t get me started on anchor babies, and the deliberate misinterpretation of the clause “…under the jurisdiction thereof…” ◄Dave►

                    • After reading this thread about the constitution, rights, fed v. state, etc….I realized I am pissing against the wind because you two don’t give a damn about what is…only what you think it should be. Here I am discussing the issues based on settled law and the real world and you both are arguing what you think it should be and personally…[Read more]

                      • See, that is what I meant about your authoritarian streak, Larry? Just because the Progressives have been steadily eroding our Constitution for over a hundred years, and a bunch of pompous asses put on silly black robes and twaddle on about ‘case law’ or ‘stare decisis’ (settled law), does not change the plain meaning of our Constitution, which…[Read more]

          • Hear! Hear! ◄Dave►

        • LOL and I say this as a resident of New York state. If ever a state needed control it’s here.

        • Just one more afterthought. I have always disagreed with the notion that the US Supreme Court was the highest court of the land. It is the highest federal court in the land that was created to be the final venue of redress over issues of federal law and issues between states. State laws have no place being heard in the US Supreme Court. Every…[Read more]

          • State laws that violate federal law will always be heard in the supreme court. If constitutional rights are violated be by state law, (and they have been) than it’s a good thing.It’s when the constitution is thrown out the window and the supreme court rules on their political agenda (and they do at times) is when the abuse of power comes into…[Read more]

            • Then I guess it comes down to the federal government making laws that it has no business dealing in.

              • That I can agree with wholeheartedly. And when this happens (unconstitutional laws,Infringing on states rights etc) than it should be up to the supreme court to shoot it down. But as long as we have presidents and congress that appoints judges along party lines I don’t see that happening. The supreme court is not suppose to be political, but they…[Read more]

          • This whole issue of the growth of federal power is very much a result of the rise of the power of special interests who have successfully focused their lobbying there….they often argue that it is bad for business to have a patchwork of different state laws affecting their operations. It is sometimes very hard to argue that point….especially…[Read more]

            • We the People could end most of that, by the simple expedient of refusing to ever vote for an incumbent. That would end the legal bribery of campaign donations, and make buying a politician too risky and frequently necessary. ◄Dave►

            • Yup Larry. That’s the way it works. I sell a whole lot more at a trade show when I get all my clients in one room for three days than I ever could on the road for three days. Two shows per year for a total of six days accounts for 40% of my annual business. It works just that good.

      • Chris…not being critical but I find it somewhat amusing the way we are almost desperately searching for someone…anyone….who would have even an itty bitty chance to pull the GOP out of their death spiral…..it could be viewed as an indication of how bad the situation really is.

        • No argument from me Larry. It’s ugly. The worst is that nobody has anybody worth a crap. When Hillary is the best the dems can muster? They can talk about republicans all they want but next to Hillary is Uncle Joe. Hey maybe they could run Pelosi. Yea they have a strong field.

    • Jim DeMint was probably alright when in the Senate but after leaving it for a more plush job, I have reservations. All I get from him in the Heritage Foundation think tank is a column once in a while and asking for money in the way of donations.
      DeMint Quote; “I believed the only thing that could turn around this government spending and mounting…[Read more]

      • I have gotten to where as soon as I see the request for donations, I hit the delete button, and don’t bother reading the rest of a message from all the organizations that have somehow acquired my e-mail address. ◄Dave►

        • Same here. If and when I donate money it will be to a particular candidate and most likely tied to my state.

      • BTW yes he was ok in the senate. That’s because he was doing his job. The same as he’s doing at Heritage. Fund raising is the main function of any high position in one of those organizations. He wasn’t hired there to think. He was hired for his connections and fund raising ability. Can’t fault a guy for doing his job.

        • I don’t think a company, especially the Heritage foundation hires the president of the company because of his fund raising ability. It goes a lot deeper than that. Fund raisers are a dime a dozen. He was definitely hired for what he knows and what he thinks His interview with Chris Wallace bears that out.

          • Your probably right. I may have sounded a bit critical in my post. The thing is that in his position the health of the organization has to be his concern and I would suggest his top concern. Now matter how you cut it that takes money. When the rubber hits the road it’s his job to make sure the money comes in. Otherwise he doesn’t even have a job.…[Read more]

  • ◄Dave► posted an update in the group Group logo of Reasonable RationalsReasonable Rationals 4 years, 7 months ago

    A new log has been thrown on the dying embers. Let the discussions begin…

  • ThumbnailI wrote this in the Spring of '06 as part of a larger essay entitled and predicting Civil War II during the outrage in the heartland over all the Mexican flags being waved in our streets by illegal aliens […]

  • Thanks for posting this over here too, Chip. I hope you will favor us with all of your usually thought-provoking blog posts in the future. They make excellent discussion fodder.

    For instance, your term […]

  • Chris posted a new activity comment 4 years, 12 months ago

    Thanks Oscar. I\’m going to insert this into the groups header and in fairness also the republican party link. It would be a good place for visitors to get more info on what it\’s about as well as show that the group isn\’t slanted or just another conservative republican promoting group.

  • I haven't thought this through nearly enough, as it only just popped into my head while reading a comment to a post about reforming the Federal Income Tax, so I decided to blog it so we can kick the idea around a […]

  • I submit for your viewing pleasure. Open the popcorn and your mind. Sort the fact from fiction and come to your own conclusions. The way you see things may just  change.

  • Tspeak posted an update 5 years, 11 months ago

    Words to live by.

  • ◄Dave► uploaded a new picture: Political Spectrum 6 years ago

    If one bends the endpoints of the traditional Left/Right line down into a circle, one sees that the extremes of both wings of the Incumbrepublocrat Duopoly are headed to the same place – Tyranny.