Is anyone out there STILL a Republican?

[Mr. E]

That's going to make it kind of difficult to express any opinion of your own on the matter. (Since leaving it to the free market, Xenu etc all involves telling people how they should live in one way or another.)

That is a bit silly, don't you think?

Take a look at the Amish. Are they being told how to live their lives? They are quite free to make the choice to live their life the way they have. They have the freedom to choose their own path.

They are not the typical American running after the almighty dollar. They care about their spiritual side and live their lives in that way and they would love to be left alone to make that choice on how to live. You and I may think that they are silly riding around in their buggies, but is that our choice to make for them? And they are free to live as they do under the current system, but would never be able to do so in a more centralized, communalized society.

Do you think that they would be pleased with the idea of all school education being made the same? I think they would be horrified. Especially when the reason being given here about it being neccesary for society are used as justifications.

If we use the excuse of the needs of society to justify what we do with education, then how long do you think we would endure the way they teach their children and even the way they live their lives? 21st century America needs children with computer and advanced science skills. For societies sake, the Amish must be ground under the feet of progress. They can run their farms better and produce more for American society as long as they are forced to give up all they believe in for the greater good.

So 10 out of 10 Amish probably would say that they feel quite safe in an America that gives them all the choices possible without anyone but themselves looking after their interests. And even though I would never join a group with such bad fashion sense, I respect their right to live their lives as they will as long as it causes no harm to how I live mine.

And that is why all things else being equal, I would probably vote Republican rather than a group that promises to take care of me and make everyone, eventhe Amish, the same.

 

[Marginal]

That is a bit silly, don't you think?

That's the point.

They are not the typical American running after the almighty dollar. They care about their spiritual side and live their lives in that way and they would love to be left alone to make that choice on how to live. You and I may think that they are silly riding around in their buggies, but is that our choice to make for them? And they are free to live as they do under the current system, but would never be able to do so in a more centralized, communalized society.

???

The Amish *are* a communal society.

Do you think that they would be pleased with the idea of all school education being made the same?

Private schools already exist. How does a state funded "private" school somehow keep people from telling you what to do?

I think they would be horrified.

At the prospect of running a school of their own? Don't they already do that?

Especially when the reason being given here about it being neccesary for society are used as justifications.

That'd be horrific if that's what was what anyone in this thread was advocating.

 

[theletch1]

ATTENTION ALL USERS:

Please, keep the conversation polite and respectful.

-Jeff Letchford
-MT Moderator-

 

[Mr. E]

The Amish *are* a communal society.

I am afraid you missed the whole point. When voting for a goverment, I will always go with those that will give the most freedom- even to set up your own commune. When people start talking about our need to help all of society, as has been the case with education here, I see that as a threat to those that would retreat from greater society like the Amish.

I hope that you can now understand and will take the time to think about it.

 

[Marginal]

I am afraid you missed the whole point.

Nope. You were offering a tragic slippery slope argument about public education run amok. I elected to not take it all that seriously as the Amish still exist despite public schooling being available.

When voting for a goverment, I will always go with those that will give the most freedom-

Ok, but that has little to do with the example you offered in relation to what was said.

When people start talking about our need to help all of society, as has been the case with education here, I see that as a threat to those that would retreat from greater society like the Amish.

I hope that you can now understand and will take the time to think about it.

I have. A non argument doesn't do much to convince me however.

Despite a few folks wanting to, (and being able to) maintain little communes etc, for the broader society as a whole, education's become a survival need in our society. Minimal education, fewer choices, fewer freedoms. If you want to truly offer people the greatest freedoms possible, you need to provide unvarnished access to education. This will not be done through dissolving the public schools and going to private education. (Assuming of course that your support of vouchers indicates that you want to do so. Which I assume is the case since my support of public schools indicates I want to generate an athieofacist communazi education system) It's not in the free market's best interest to drag along the people on the wrong side of the bell curve. Don't need illegal immigrant labor if the poor and stupid can be harnessed as field hands after all.* Can't justify that now since they have access to education. A generation of illiterates who can't do basic math on the other hand? Can't even justify keeping minimum wage laws on the books for those types. Ideal Libertarian scenario. (After all, the illiterates could always try to learn to read on their own, and if they don't they're clearly lazy and deserving of their lot.)

Science fiction aside, my point is that public schools as they exist now don't take away freedom. Vouchers make the options slightly broader but the end result's the same. You get a kid who can read, write, and cipher. Hopefully, the education's diverse enough to include science, social studies, etc. Nothing worse IMO than weighing potentially great minds down with the parents' willful ignorance.


*I do not believe this will ever happen, nor do I believe it remotely possible.

 

[Mr. E]

Despite a few folks wanting to, (and being able to) maintain little communes etc, for the broader society as a whole, education's become a survival need in our society.

You see, that is the danger. As you lay things out, society can't permit more than a small amount of people to do as they wish like the Amish. The needs of society is greater than the rights of a few people. So what would happen if a greater number of people wanted to move away from materialism and move to communes? It sounds like that they would be barred from doing so with the excuse of the needs of society if you take your logic to its conclusion.

And what about the unfairness of making people like the Amish pay for the school system through various taxes and then structuring the education so that it is against everything they stand for? You earlier tried to make it sound like anyone who opposes the democrats were doing so because they were too seflish to pay for other people's education. What about the Amish, who are hardly rich and yet are forced to pay taxes to pay for schools that they can't go to because of their beliefs?

I talk about choices and which party will give the populace the most. Which party would allow the Amish the chance to take some of the money they pay in taxes and use vouchers to defray the cost of private education? As I said, I do not believe in what the Amish do not would I ever become one. But it is just wrong to force them to pay taxes for education and then deny them the right to a public education unless they change what they are and do all this with the excuse of the greater need of society.

 

[michaeledward]

That a discussion is using Amish communities as an example is a bit strange. The Amish communities will die out over the next century. Sect differences and strict rules about inter-sect relationships will kill this manifestation of religion.

But, even further, I believe the Amish lifestyle as abusive to children. If society were to get a closer look at this lifestyle, aside from the cute clothes, buggies, and 'family style' diners, most of us would be appalled.

Masking the abuse behind the idea of free religion makes it more difficult to call out the injustices in that community. But, it is hardly something we should aspire too.

(A similiar religious belief was recently presented in court. A Morman sect leader was found guilty for abetting rape. That his religious beliefs condon poly-marriage should be irrelevant.)


The challenge that the community faces is this: If we agree that education should be mandatory for the youth of our society, then we need to find a way to finance it. If we allow a small segment of the society to exempt themselves from participation, how will that exemption impact the larger, remaining members of society?

It is my observation that creating such segments in the community creates disunity and should be avoided, if possible. Which brings us back to my original question, the foundation of the argument. Should education be mandatory for our society?

 

[Marginal]

You see, that is the danger. As you lay things out, society can't permit more than a small amount of people to do as they wish like the Amish. The needs of society is greater than the rights of a few people. So what would happen if a greater number of people wanted to move away from materialism and move to communes?

If it's like every other time this is attempted, they'd find out that nobody wants to muck out the stables or maintain the crops and they'd eventually lose interest. Society is the way it is through consensus. That's how most people are fine with living. There will always be outliers, but the odds of a great mass of people deciding to go and live so differently that broader society stops and takes notice aren't especially high.

It sounds like that they would be barred from doing so with the excuse of the needs of society if you take your logic to its conclusion.

Depends. If it's like the Branch Davidians, or Heaven's Gate, it hardly matters since they take themselves out. If they're into sexually abusing underage girls, society does tend to put pressure on them as well even if they claim that it's part of their religion.

Society does tend to generate what is perceived to be normative pressures on the unassuming/harmless societal breakaways. How strung that pressure is depends on the climate etc. There was a time when Quakers were persecuted for their beliefs. (By persecuted, I mean, crushed under rocks and so fourth by Puritans)

Homosexuals are currently experiencing those "normative" pressures as well. (Nothing like a good anti Gay amendment to fire up the GOP's base after all.) Despite that, I'm betting that they'll eventually gain the right to marry and so on because their movement is large enough and supported by a large enough portion of broader society that society as a whole will no longer able to unreasonably/irrationally quash their rights with the old "Because God said so!" chestnut. They haven't had an easy road getting to a crossroads like this however.

And what about the unfairness of making people like the Amish pay for the school system through various taxes and then structuring the education so that it is against everything they stand for?

The school system's geared around attacking horse drawn carriages and endorsing the forging of graven images?

You earlier tried to make it sound like anyone who opposes the democrats were doing so because they were too seflish to pay for other people's education.What about the Amish, who are hardly rich and yet are forced to pay taxes to pay for schools that they can't go to because of their beliefs?

They can go to them. They certainly don't fund public schools to the degree that people who buy cars etc do regardless.

I talk about choices and which party will give the populace the most.

Of course this is a matter of perspective. I think offering people the opportunity to attend school opens up those choices further. I also question the party of choice in question here because of minor sticking points like why homosexuals aren't allowed to enjoy the same legal rights as heterosexual couples.

Why the push to privatize the public school system? Is it really an effort to encourage choice, or is it just a way to sneak a specific religion (and in turn, reducing choice) into the classroom etc?

As I said, I do not believe in what the Amish do not would I ever become one. But it is just wrong to force them to pay taxes for education and then deny them the right to a public education unless they change what they are and do all this with the excuse of the greater need of society.

Strawman aside, the fact is, the Amish do have schools already. You may want to look into just how much they're privately+publicly funded. No democrat is gunning for the Amish, and presenting this as a likely scenario is just as silly as my projected Libertatian nightmare was.

 

[michaeledward]

The current Republican Administration has changed what the Federal Emergency Management Agency is all about.

First, they rolled into the Department of Homeland Security.

Then, they had 'Heck of a job, Brownie', the horse master, running the show.

Now, they stage their own press conferences ... but they are certain not to face the actual press.

Yes. FEMA held a news conference where FEMA employees played the part of questioning, inquisitive reporters. While the true journalists were forced to call into a 'listen only' conference line.

Just when you think there is NOTHING this administration could do that would present them in a worse light than they have already stand in, they do something like this.

Two years after Katrina, and they are still attempting to 'play the part' of a government agency.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21490838/

 

[michaeledward]

Saw a headline on the MSNBC web page yesterday.

"Wash. legislator resigns amid gay sex scandal"

There is no mention of political affiliation, therefore, the "liberal media" must be shielding a Democratic politician from shame, right? If it was a Republican, the headline would have been different, right?

Well, not so much.

It is another Republican, who voted against equal treatment under the law for homosexuals in a number of instances, caught in a gay tryst.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21568392/

 

[michaeledward]

I got a chuckle from this.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/07/books/07cons.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

I almost wanted to start a new thread ... "Is anyone out there still a Republican AUTHOR".

It seems that many of the 'conservative' authors who have often lined the 'Best Sellers' lists around the country in recent years, are bringing civil action against the company that Published their works. Their books have attacked Democratic persons, and praised Republican persons.

The authors believe they are due more royalties than they have received; their books, after all, were best sellers.



It is a widely known secret ... to me at least ... that Regeny publishing was created to spread the Republican/Conservative gospel. And a book on the best seller list, gets talking points and interviews on the Republican Gospel talk channel (Fox News). So, Regeny buys truckloads of books from itself at steeply discounted prices, and parks them in warehouses. The books make the best seller list, the authors get on the talk shows, and the public believes the associated crackpot ideas are more widely held than reality would dictate.

Now the authors are spoiling the game. They actually want to get paid for those books that were purchased by phantom organizations.

For Regeny, and its owners, it would seem there fifteen minutes of fame is more important that money ... well, almost. They can throw small amounts of money at buying the books the publish, but can't complete the charade by paying the authors.


Oh, and one more thing. George W. Bush has higher 'disapproval' ratings than Richard M. Nixon did in 1974. See the last paragraph here ...

http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20071106/a_iranpoll06.art.htm

 

[michaeledward]

This article is interesting ... and it goes, I believe to the point which started this thread.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy.../07/AR2007110700006.html?hpid=sec-tech&sub=AR

You may need an Washington Post account to read it.

The diagram showed splitters, glass prisms that split signals from each network into two identical copies. One fed into the secret room, the other proceeded to its destination, he said.

"This splitter was sweeping up everything, vacuum-cleaner-style," he said. "The NSA is getting everything. These are major pipes that carry not just AT&T's customers but everybody's."

emphasis added

 

[Ray]

Oh, and one more thing. George W. Bush has higher 'disapproval' ratings than Richard M. Nixon did in 1974. See the last paragraph here ...

Heck, I say repeal the 22nd amendment, dig Nixon up and let him be pres again. Even though he did some real bone-head stuff (wage & price controls, watergate cover-up) he was willing to say "try it, if it doesn't work then try something else."

 

[michaeledward]

Nixon was before my time. I remember coming home from summer camp on the day he resigned ~ or announced that he was going to resign.

What I know, is that he was a paranoid, crook.

But, he did give us the clean water act and the clean air act. He was a liberal by today's standards of the Republican Party.

 

[michaeledward]

Today, from a speech on the Senate floor by the newest Senator from the Nation's smallest State, we glipse into the audacity of the Republican President. In which, legal positions are record that we are indeed a Nation of a man, President George W. Bush, and not a Nation of Laws.

To give you an example of what I read, I have gotten three legal propositions from these OLC opinions declassified. Here they are, as accurately as my note taking could reproduce them from the classified documents. Listen for yourself. I will read all three, and then discuss each one.

1. An executive order cannot limit a President. There is no constitutional requirement for a President to issue a new executive order whenever he wishes to depart from the terms of a previous executive order. Rather than violate an executive order, the President has instead modified or waived it.
2. The President, exercising his constitutional authority under Article II, can determine whether an action is a lawful exercise of the President's authority under Article II.
3. The Department of Justice is bound by the President's legal determinations.

If President Bush decides something is legal, the Department of Justice must consider it legal?

This is the Nixon defense.

 

[Ray]

Today, from a speech on the Senate floor by the newest Senator from the Nation's smallest State, we glipse into the audacity of the Republican President. In which, legal positions are record that we are indeed a Nation of a man, President George W. Bush, and not a Nation of Laws.
[/list]If President Bush decides something is legal, the Department of Justice must consider it legal?

This is the Nixon defense.

Do you have something firmer to base the meaning of executive orders on and the scope and legality of them? After all, we might get one of your liberal heros or heroines in the white house soon. I'd sure have to agonize over the legality of their executive orders...and we mustn't forget we've had democratic and republican presidents before. Even when Jimmy Carter was president he was my president even though he was one of the worst we've had. Yes, Nixon was a bad one too.

I'm still a republican.

 

[michaeledward]

Please note, the descriptions I list are not mine. They were entered into the Senate record during a floor speech by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse.

As for Senator Whitehouse's credentials ...

Well, first, he is a Senator. (I hope that carries more weight than just lil ole me), but his resume on info please looks like this. I've highlighted a couple of things of note.

WHITEHOUSE, Sheldon, a Senator from Rhode Island; born in Manhattan, N.Y., October 20, 1955; graduated Yale University 1978; J.D., University of Virginia 1982; director, Rhode Island Department of Business Regulation 1992-1994; United States attorney 1994-1998; Rhode Island State attorney general 1999-2003; unsuccessful candidate for governor 2002; elected as a Democrat to the United States Senate in 2006 for the term ending January 3, 2013.​

It would seem to me that a former United States Attorney would be familiar with the law.

He also sat on the committee which provided advice and consent to Mr. Mukasey, our new United States Attorney General. Here is part of that transcript.

QUESTION Whitehouse (D-RI) Do you believe that the President may act contrary to a valid executive order? In the event he does, need he amend the executive order or provide any notice that he is acting contrary to the executive order?
ANSWER Mukasey: Executive orders reflect the directives of the President. Should an executive order apply to the President and he determines that the order should be modified, the appropriate course would be for him to issue a new order or to amend the prior order.

Oops.

 

[Ray]

Please note, the descriptions I list are not mine. They were entered into the Senate record during a floor speech by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse.

Cool, so you have someone's opinion of the matter...lots of motion but no movement. There must be more precedence, legal rulings on executive orders, their scope and so on? Obviously the gov't was organized to be a constant struggle between the branches.

Are you saying that the (any) pres should have no power to issue executive orders? Since you have demonstrated your feelings for conservatives, do you think that only Bush and/or republicans should have no power to issue executive orders?

You may think I'm attacking the messenger, but alas, I'm trying understand if you have a message?

 

[michaeledward]

Cool, so you have someone's opinion of the matter...lots of motion but no movement. There must be more precedence, legal rulings on executive orders, their scope and so on? Obviously the gov't was organized to be a constant struggle between the branches.

Are you saying that the (any) pres should have no power to issue executive orders? Since you have demonstrated your feelings for conservatives, do you think that only Bush and/or republicans should have no power to issue executive orders?

You may think I'm attacking the messenger, but alas, I'm trying understand if you have a message?

First, I would suggest that we not conflate the idea of a conservative with a Republican (or, whatever your preferred description of the current Administration). The Conservative political position has a measure of integrity that has been lacking from the actions of the post Gingrich congress and the post-Supreme Court appointment of President Bush.

Concerning Executive Orders, I am not saying that they should not exist. I am saying, and Senator Whitehouse points out, that there are natural limits to the Executive Order. As the head of the Executive Branch of government, it is reasonable to assume the President can issue instructions to those agencies within the Executive Branch.

Of course, each branch of government was designed and intended to be a check on the other two. This means the Legislative and Judicial Branches of government have a role in constraining the scope of Executive Orders.

In Senator Whitehouse's speech, he tells of an Executive Order that allows intelligence services to tap United States Citizens phone calls and email messages without a warrant, if that citizen leaves the geographic United States. This Executive Order seems to be a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution which protects us from unreasonable searches and seizures.

A President should not have the authority through Executive Order to violate the Bill of Rights.


Executive Orders do carry legal weight. Our Constitution tells us that laws are written in Congress, and signed into law by the President. Executive Orders skip that whole 'writting by Congress' thing. Because of this, it would appear to me that if there is a conflict between a Congressionally written law, and an Executive Order, the law originating in the People's Houses take presidence. The President should not be able to write an Executive Order that superceeds Congressional laws (much as President Bush has done with his 'signing statements - See Charles Pierce).

Lastly, when the President issues an Executive Order, if it has the force of law behind it, then the President must adhere to the language and intent of the Executive Order. He can not act outside the confines of the Executive Order without taking appropriate actions to update the Executive Order. This is exceedingly important so that the Judicial Branch of Government, and the Leglislative Branch of Government can properly perform their role as check and balance. This goes directly to the questioning between Whitehouse and Mukasey I quoted above.

Whitehouse asked if the President can change the scope of Executive Orders without taking any action. Mukasey answered that the President must take action to correct or update the Executive Order.

The President's Office of Legal Council has written into law a conflict with this position; essentially giving President Bush the 'Because I said So' rule of government - freeing him from any oversight, as designed in our Constitution.

 

[Ray]

Michael - Thanks, that is a much better explanation. Except for the first paragraph (propaganda) and the conclusions of how the pres may be limited by his own exec order (I would need to investigate further), I thought it was a great post.