Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

     

Left Nav S-B Home Register FAQ Members List S-B on Facebook Arcade WEAX Tides Buoys Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Right Nav

Left Container Right Container
 

Go Back   Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating » Striper Chat - Discuss stuff other than fishing ~ The Scuppers and Political talk » Political Threads

Political Threads This section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi:

 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 04-03-2014, 04:59 AM   #91
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
=detbuch;1037743

And that is the real question here. That is why Jim keeps bringing up the Constitution rather than personal opinion of right and wrong. The problem began here, not with HL owners desire to refuse the providing of certain insurance, but with the government mandating that they must.

If we grant the Federal Government the power to mandate that we buy a particular product or be penalized if we don't, then we give it the precedent to do so with any product. If we do so, we give the government absolute power over our lives. That is, ultimately, what the passage of the ACA, and resistance to it, is about.[/QUOTE]



seems to be the preferred mode of argument "personal opinion" for the likely more educated and holders of superior judgment crowd..."it would appear based on what I've read(at Mother Jones)" are paramount... Constitutional questions completely ignored...

this was great...

Originally Posted by Nebe View Post
Just my opinion but scott is off base.

The views seem to be " practice your religion, but dont put your values on someone else. Don't discriminate someone else, etc.
The law is the law. If an employee at AC Moore or Michaels crafts is being provided birth control, hobby lobby employees should as well.

Seems pretty simple ? No?[QUOTE


simple...no...maybe..which law? (the one which Obama seems to change continually as he sees fit in true "law is the law" fashion) can we substitute "birth control" with other things and have the simple "law is the law" still apply ?? if we included(mandated) and/or AC Moore and Michaels offered more mandated drugs and surgeries and treatments that Hobby Lobby could then be forced to provide because the "law is the law" we might actually be able to make "these people", the Hobby Lobby employees and their offspring more acceptable to Piscator through the miracles of modern medicine....geez...no wonder healthcare is so expensive....simple...no??? probably "off base"...I know....

Last edited by scottw; 04-03-2014 at 06:32 AM..
scottw is offline  
Old 04-03-2014, 05:06 AM   #92
The Dad Fisherman
Super Moderator
iTrader: (0)
 
The Dad Fisherman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Georgetown MA
Posts: 18,177
Fox news had it.....

"If you're arguing with an idiot, make sure he isn't doing the same thing."
The Dad Fisherman is offline  
Old 04-03-2014, 05:09 AM   #93
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman View Post
Fox news had it.....
then it's definitely a lie

interesting reactions to the Supreme Court yesterday on another Constitutional issue, seems the same folks who are happy to continually expand the purview of the federal government, many of whom have become extraordinarily wealthy as a result of their time as "public servants", are somehow shocked and surprised that they can't keep the money out of politics

Hobby Lobby...or...."Lobby Hobby" ...should simply point out that the president has not followed his own "law is the law" since day 1....randomly granting waivers and moving deadlines(sidenote...Syria has missed every deadline since the redline, I no longer understand what a deadline is other than it's completely arbitrary)...regress...choosing to enforce or not enforce "laws is the laws"....my 4th graders are studying government and the Constitution and they understand that this and these are not the powers granted the executive but the brightest among us don't seem to have an issue with it...Mother Jones should do an investigation

Last edited by scottw; 04-03-2014 at 07:08 AM..
scottw is offline  
Old 04-03-2014, 07:56 AM   #94
Piscator
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
Piscator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Marshfield, Ma
Posts: 2,150
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw View Post
=detbuch;1037743
if we included(mandated) and/or AC Moore and Michaels offered more mandated drugs and surgeries and treatments that Hobby Lobby could then be forced to provide because the "law is the law" we might actually be able to make "these people", the Hobby Lobby employees and their offspring more acceptable to Piscator through the miracles of modern medicine....geez...no wonder healthcare is so expensive....simple...no??? probably "off base"...I know....
Ha ha ha, my post was to include some humor in this thread...

Switching gears...my wife works for one of the largest companies in the world, they mandated this year that all prescription drugs covered under their plan must be bought through CVS and CVS only. No more Walgreens.

Also, my company doesn't include coverage for rubbers...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"I know a taxidermy man back home. He gonna have a heart attack when he see what I brung him!"
Piscator is offline  
Old 04-03-2014, 11:26 AM   #95
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
We are arguing inside the fog of transition. It is a sort of parallel to the fog of war. Things, or issues, are not clearly understood or defined. Foe is often perceived to be friend, or vice versa. With the best of intention, we kill that or who would save us. Because we see through the fictional "truth" of the fluid moment rather than the stable truth of principles and fundamentals, we see through a glass darkly.

There is no argument among those "in the know," the generals outside the pitch of battle, what the battle is about and who the enemy is. Those in the obscure heat of combat are merely following orders. So they follow the party line or the generals' commands, and often destroy each other.

There is no longer a debate, among "those who know" that we are in transition, that we are being transformed from a constitutional republic to a "progressive" authoritarian State. And the true battle is between those who wish to transform us and those who wish to resist and maintain the constitutional order. Most of the rest of us are enlisted as the grunts who provide the fodder for political war.

The leaders of transformation welcome the fog, in fact create it by not defining the ultimate mission. They did define it long ago, but the grunts were still attached to "outdated" notions of individual freedoms and constitutional protections against the very government that would supposedly free them from the tyranny of the wealthy class. Initial victories were gained, but eventually turned back and progressive government lost some of the freedom it had gained to "free" the people, and had to go underground. It no longer could clearly define its mission, but had to undermine the basis for the supposedly outdated constitutional order by co-opting it. Progressive government re-emerged more strongly by convincing the grunts that it was actually operating constitutionally. This tactic propelled it into dominance, and it has constantly gained ground against the old order, to the point that its grunts no longer question it. They accept that "history" has changed and "progressed" to a point that we no longer need to fear government, that it is the benefactor not the oppressor, that it, and it alone is our protector against a ruling class who would steal every penny we own and subject us to the slavery of supporting the 1% that robs us of wealth, dignity, and true "effective" freedom.

It is no longer necessary for the most part that progressive government even pretend to follow the Constitution, not only has it re-written it by judicial fiat, but their grunts no longer consider it a factor. So it is understandable that when a Hobby Lobby, or a baker, or photographer resists government mandate on personal individual, or even constitutional, grounds, the progressive grunts "see" that as "forcing" their values on others, but do not see government mandates as forcing its dictates on individuals. For them, government is not forcing, it has become the legitimate arbiter and decider of law, ethics, purpose, and method of existence. It is not a power of force, it is a creative power. It creates our reality. Reality cannot be forced, it just is.

Those who oppose this, "see" that government is to serve the ends of the people rather than people serving the ends of government . . . that individuals are the creators, and that government serves their freedom to create. They are not as much in need of grunts as their opponents since they are the acting grunts. They wish to convince the opposing grunts to join them . . . to understand that "grunts" are the true power. That in a truly liberal society, the grunts run the show. The show is about them, not about a ruling party or power, progressive or otherwise. But that to rule, as a united people, they must have a common ground acceptable to all on which to govern themselves. They understand that system of government has already been created by individual forbears who created a limited government to protect all against the real or possible tyranny of an overly powerful or all-powerful ruling class.

So there is an intellectual and political battle fought in the fog of thrown out bombs and fragments posed as issues and mandates which supposedly create fairness, equality, and freedom, but which actually deny those to some in favor of others, and eventually ensnare even those who were once favored into the same vortex of losing their "rights." There is the confusion that these are LAWS and are legitimately imposed by a beneficent government which is an irresistible force of history and should be obeyed because those who resist are antiquated, anti-historical, laughable retrogrades who do not understand the transformational purpose of government. These backward types, supposedly, do not understand that progressive government, the type of government that history has created, does not force, it creates. And it is legitimate because history, not individuals, not the People, not some supernatural or mystical or unknowable force, is the true creator.

And through that fog, the other side argues that history is entirely the reflective product of people, not that people are a product of history. This side argues that history is a record of human events. Without humanity, there is no history, and if humans wished, they could stop writing history, or, as many do, rewrite it. History is more imperfect than individuals since it is a second generation product created by individuals. We cannot be ruled by historical force, since we create the history which has no force beyond our recognition. And so, this side sees progressive government not as an historical imperative that must be obeyed, but as the rule of men who impose their will on others. That progressive government actually does FORCE the dictates of some people on other people. And this side does not see resistance to that force as forcing their values on others, but as preserving their own.

So long as there is no common basis for government there can be no resolution for what government is. That progressives are about transforming our society and its system of government is not in question. They have openly avowed to doing so. Their tactics may have been untruthful, but in war all is "fair." And the political fog of debate that has been created is the transitional one we are in. The discussions we have here pass by each other in parallel but opposite directions. The ends and the means are different, and cannot be reconciled. As in most wars, only victory will decide, not argument or compromise. Compromise is always temporary since it does not allow the fundamental differences to be fully satisfied, and the fight will eventually resurface until somebody "wins" with a total victory.

And that's what the ACA and the myriad of federal regulations which are outside the scope of the original Constitution are about. Even in using it's bogus "constitutional" power to mandate what we must buy, it was not necessary to force the majority of people who have medical insurance to undergo higher costs and deductibles as well as limiting their choices, all in order to provide insurance for the uninsured (actually to FORCE the uninsured to get insurance). All of the progressive anti-constitutional mandates eventually assure total victory of progressive government over constitutional government.

And so, in the meantime, we grunts are reduced by political fog to arguing about health plans, and who invested in what, and who are hypocrites, and who is forcing who, and who should have insurance, and who should pay for it, and what should be in insurance plans, and should they provide contraceptives for everyone (really!?! most people can't afford them?), and a myriad of trifling tidbits, and the obfuscation hides the ultimate objectives.

Which grunts are destroying each other in this fog of war with friendly fire is debatable. If you wish to preserve your individual and unalienable rights beyond the reach of government, but, in order to claim victory for your progressive side, you destroy those rights of others, you are destroying the protection of your own. And if, in the pursuit of your personal happiness, as a "conservative" you choose to fight for the right to do so beyond the reach of government, by accomplishing that you destroy the rights of others and government to impose on you, or, as well, to impose on those who fight against you.

One side fights for everyone's unalienable right not to be unlimitedly imposed on by government, the other fights for the government's "right" to impose without restriction on their "enemy," and so gains the government the right to impose without limitation on all, including on themselves. The fog of political war obscures who the enemy really is.

Last edited by detbuch; 04-04-2014 at 10:51 AM..
detbuch is offline  
Old 04-03-2014, 08:17 PM   #96
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piscator View Post
Ha ha ha, my post was to include some humor in this thread...

Also, my company doesn't include coverage for rubbers...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I thought it was pretty funny...no penis enlargements then probably huh?...too bad...because then since the law is the law other companies that do what your's does could be forced to provide enlarged penises for everyone if your's provided them under certain logic...pretty simple...no? ....pretty funny...yes
scottw is offline  
Old 04-03-2014, 08:20 PM   #97
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
We are arguing inside ..................... to impose on you.
yeah..I don't think Paul is gonna make it through all of that
scottw is offline  
Old 04-03-2014, 08:23 PM   #98
Piscator
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
Piscator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Marshfield, Ma
Posts: 2,150
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw View Post
I thought it was pretty funny...no penis enlargements then probably huh?...too bad...because then since the law is the law other companies that do what your's does could be forced to provide enlarged penises for everyone if your's provided them under certain logic...pretty simple...no? ....pretty funny...yes
I work with a bunch of #^&#^&#^&#^&s anyway
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"I know a taxidermy man back home. He gonna have a heart attack when he see what I brung him!"
Piscator is offline  
Old 04-03-2014, 08:24 PM   #99
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piscator View Post
I work with a bunch of #^&#^&#^&#^&s anyway
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
scottw is offline  
Old 04-03-2014, 08:46 PM   #100
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
We are arguing inside ..................... to impose on you.



Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw View Post
yeah..I don't think Paul is gonna make it through all of that
Thanks for reduction to essentials. The same old arguments carried over from other threads about who's forcing whom, and hypocrisy, and the righteous necessity of providing contraceptives (or rubbers, as Jim calls them), or who's forcing whom, or stunts, or who's forcing whom, and did I mention the debate about who's forcing who? . . . . the fog got to me and I rambled and pontificated. I guess that signals the end of the thread. Good night.
detbuch is offline  
Old 04-04-2014, 03:39 AM   #101
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
We are arguing inside ..................... to impose on you.


Thanks for reduction to essentials. The same old arguments carried over from other threads about who's forcing whom, and hypocrisy, and the righteous necessity of providing contraceptives (or rubbers, as Jim calls them), or who's forcing whom, or stunts, or who's forcing whom, and did I mention the debate about who's forcing who? . . . . the fog got to me and I rambled and pontificated. I guess that signals the end of the thread. Good night.
you are right, there's serious chasm in the views regarding the "rules of the game"....if a batter strolls to the plate today in one of the MLB games and watched three pitches go down the middle of the plate and then stands there after being called out by the umpire and objects saying that he ought(has a right to) to have 4 strikes and the umpire because he's also felt that way for sometime agrees and the catcher argues and points out that the rules clearly state 3 strikes and the pitcher joins him at the plate with the manager who has the rule book in his hand but fans who are rooting for the batter crowd around in a threatening fashion and the reporters begin reporting that the catcher and pitcher and manager are obstructing the game and are probably doing so because of their hate for the batter and the opposing team and when the batter and umpire are asked to clarify if they believe the game should be played under MLB rules they refuse to answer the "got cha" question.......well....that's pretty much where we're at...

Williamson has had some very good articles recently, you should check out his archive if you've not already done so...

he recently referred to Antithought,
As Orwell put it, using “language as an instrument for concealing or preventing thought.” "a phrase or expression that is intended to prevent understanding rather than to enable it. Antithought includes elements of the linguistic meme, question-begging, and attempts to change the subject." http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...n-d-williamson

and also described the competing views this way in another article...

"Progressives like to talk about what government ought to do; conservatives are inclined to immure that conversation within an architecture of skepticism about what government can do. The paraphrase of Immanuel Kant — ought implies can — is fundamental to the conservative view of government. James Madison famously observed that “if men were angels, no government would be necessary.” But he also understood that men do not become angels once they win elections, become police, or are appointed to positions of power. Our constitutional order strikes an elegant balance between policing the non-angels outside of government and constraining the non-angels within government, setting the ambitions of the three branches against one another and subdividing the legislative branch against itself. The founding generation, being more philosophically sophisticated and biblically literate than our own generation, understood something that often eludes us: Angels are in short supply, but all the devils are here, and our best chance of surviving the avarice and cruelty that exists at least potentially in every human heart is to set our appetites in opposition.

Adam Smith’s formula for prosperity — “peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice” — is the very modest ambition that conservatives aim for. Limited government is the tool by which government can be made to do good without necessarily being good, or being composed of good men.

The progressive state, on the other hand, is a state infused with moral purpose. If politics is to be a jihad, then the state must be invested with extraordinary power to achieve its moral mission. There is no way to invest the state with extraordinary power without also investing those powers in the men who hold its offices and staff its bureaucracies, which hold ever more nearly absolute power over our property and our lives. (And given that the Obama administration has made a policy of assassinating U.S. citizens without legal process, we might as well call that power “absolute.”) But if those elective offices and regulatory fortresses are to be staffed with men who are corrupt and corruptible, then the progressive vision of the morality-infused state must falter.

And they — we — are all corruptible.

When a conservative suffers from a moral failing, it is taken as an indictment of conservatism itself, even though conservatism in the Anglo–Protestant tradition is founded upon the expectation that moral failing is universal. In that sense, every Scott DesJarlais tells conservatives what we already know: that man is a fallen creature, and that, contra the Obamacare regime, there are no exemptions to be handed out from that condition, no waivers from human nature. The progressive view, on the other hand, is that our politics and our institutions could be channels of moral action and reliably ethical arbiters of such ill-defined standards as “fairness” and “social justice,” if only we put the right people in power.

But there are no right people."



seems to me that for the most part religious minded choose to have faith in what they believe is a perfect being and are hoping for a miracle

seems to me that for the most part the secular minded choose to have faith in imperfect beings and are expecting miracles

the founders understood that these are natural human conditions and made accommodations but as Spence likes to say..."it's all moot"...if we can't agree on the number of strikes that the batter is allowed despite what is written in the rat hole of MLB rules

Last edited by scottw; 04-04-2014 at 06:56 AM..
scottw is offline  
Old 04-05-2014, 07:13 AM   #102
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post

or who's forcing whom, or stunts, or who's forcing whom, and did I mention the debate about who's forcing who? . . . .
I don't think there's much of a debate with regard to 'force'...we can't force each other to do anything(without the assistance of government)...in each of these cases, it is about government force and with the approval of some if it suits their agenda and ideology... Hobby Lobby isn't forcing it's employees to purchase insurance or even the insurance that they sponsor, they could purchase it elsewhere, maybe Obamacare if they find the Hobby Lobby insurance inadequate, the federal government is forcing the employee to purchase insurance or pay a penalty and then forcing Hobby Lobby to provide certain things in their insurance, the Bigot Baker wasn't forcing the couple to do or purchase anything, they were free to go elsewhere to purchase what they wanted, it was government force directed by the couple to force the Baker to comply with their wishes....I see the same people consistently arguing for government force to forward their agenda and ideology with no real basis for their argument other than to imply 'because we're smarter than you"...that's a problem because the Constitution spells out in very simple terms our protections against this government force

Last edited by scottw; 04-05-2014 at 09:03 AM..
scottw is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:51 AM.


Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Please use all necessary and proper safety precautions. STAY SAFE Striper Talk Forums
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com