"Extremism on the left and on the right is much the same. Salient in both
are fear and hate of an "other" and detachment of reality."Fair enough. While the extremists on both sides may be the same,
it seems as though the extremists on the right control the party. Those on the
left are more of a fringe element. The extremes on the right will
determine the candidate for the general. And they better be pure. They better raise their hand when asked if they would reject a 10 to 1
spending cuts to tax increase.They better be solidly anti tax, anti
gay, anti government anti abortion anti Obama and pro gun. Any chink in the
armor gets you removed from the dance, leaving only the Ted Cruz's and Rand
Paul's standing.The left extremists do not control the party.
The right extremists do.That is the difference.
WASHINGTON -- Two prominent old-line Senate Republicans threw down the gauntlet
to their more conversative colleagues on Tuesday, challenging them to stop
obstructing the passage of a budget.Led by tea party Sens. Rand Paul
(R-Ky.), Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Mike Lee (R-Utah), Republicans have been
preventing the Senate from sending the budget it passed earlier this year to a
conference committee with the House, at which major differences between the two
chambers' budget bills would in theory be worked out. Senate Minority
Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has been supportive of the blockade.But on Tuesday, Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine)
blasted the obstruction in a Senate floor showdown with Paul.McCain
went so far as to call his fellow senators' actions "bizarre."
Agreed. Our current political climate is such that it's often considered
more important to score political points than to make actual progress. We need
our elected officials to rediscover the fine art of compromise. There is such a
thing as a greater good, and it's rarely to be found on the fringes of the
Nice prose, but short on reality.The Federal Government was
established to enable a Federation of States to survive in a hostile world, a
world where Great Britain was still the supreme power - and would remain the
supreme world power for well over another hundred years. Those little states
joined together and pledged support to each other in case of attack. They
pledged a willingness to treat each other with respect and to not take advantage
of each other because of size or lack thereof. They formulated a few simple
rules that would make all of that possible - then they enumerated those rules in
their newly written Constitution.They reserved to themselves or to
the people all authority and all power not specifically enumerated in that
Constitution. They did not consider their new nation to be the peoples'
nanny. They did not see their new nation as being responsible to feed, to
clothe, to house or to educate the people. They left those responsibilities to
the people. They certainly didn't lay off on that new nation the
responsibility to collect taxes to pay for medical expenses for the people.Come on back, Democrats. Stop sliding away.
Mike Richards, talk about being short on reality. England may have been
dominant for the next hundred years but that only takes you to the late
1870's, and then modernity occurred. You are absolutely wrong when you
infer or even say that Democrats want to be responsible for the feeding,
housing, or even the education of the entire nation. What Democrats do realize
is that the world, including our place in the world has changed in such a way
that the various states can't function as a loosely knit organization of
states doing their own thing regards health, education, commerce, and still
survive and prosper. Modernity requires we work as one. Like it or not what
happens in New York directly affects what happens in Utah. Here's the heart of my disagreement and most peoples disagreement with
your vision of the world and this country, "They formulated a few simple
rules that would make all of that possible". The rules they formulated were
not simple but in fact broad and visionary, and the world they now govern is
anything but simple. It is complicated, complex, and interdependent. Simple is
a thing of the past, if it ever existed.
I'm still trying to figure out why DN is publishing a constant string of op
eds by Liljenquist.Is he being set up for another run at political
Discord for its' own sake is killing our democracy and government.
pragmatistferlife,We have a disagreement on the mechanics used to
change the relationship between the people and the government. The rules were
listed. Government cannot change those rules unilaterally. The people cannot
change those rules unilaterally. In order to change the duties of government,
Congress must amend the Constitution and then 75% of the States must ratify
those changes. That has not yet been done. Article 1, Section 8 is the acid
test of what duties we have allowed Congress to tax us for. Until Congress
amends the Constitution and 75% of the States ratify that amendment, the duties
and authority of Congress stands as written. Article 5 of the
Constitution clearly spells out the process. Anyone who tells us that his
modified version of the Constitution takes precedence over the ratified version
does understand either the fact that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the
Land or that it cannot be changed by popular opinion or to suit political
correctness.If you're not satisfied with the rules, then change
them, but obey the rules required to make those changes.
"If you're not satisfied with the rules, then change them, but obey the
rules required to make those changes."The rules include Supreme
Court rulings.You seem to want to completely disregard those when
they don't suit you.
@ Mike Richards – “If you're not satisfied with the rules, then
change them, but obey the rules required to make those changes.”Your entire argument is premised on the notion that the Constitution fully
explains itself and its applicability in all situations. Obviously this is false
or we wouldn’t even need a Supreme Court.Based on some of your
past comments, Obamacare sounds like the most hubristic unconstitutional law
ever foisted on the American people, and yet the SC ruled in constitutional.So is the Constitution you want to preserve or only certain
interpretations of it?
I have made a promise to myself to never argue with Mike Richards again. It does
no good. His view of reality is so skewed that I can find no common ground on
which to speak to him. So, to the letter . . .The presidential
election in 2012 proved to the Republican Party that it cannot win with and
extremist candidate or even one who bends so far to the right that he alienates
the middle. If they try it in 2016, they will lose by a larger margin, because
the country is moving away from the extreme right, particular younger people,
women, and minorities.The Democrats already figured out a while ago
that they cannot win with an extreme liberal candidate. And even though the far
right has labeled President Obama an extreme liberal, his record proves
otherwise. With few exceptions, he has tried to govern from the middle, even
promoting a health-care plan that was largely a conservative creation and
offering again and again to meet the GOP in the middle on budgetary matters.If the GOP can't figure this out, too bad. They can be replaced by
a more realistic alternative.
Here is the question, "progress" into the 21st century or
"conserve" your energy and remain in the 18th century? Grow collectively
or remain mired in the gilded age when we had a class system that is rivaling us
today? Some people just can't get over the fact that the ship sailed in
@Mike RichardsSouth Jordan, Utah...They formulated a few
simple rules that would make all of that possible....====== What a second, now I confused;This couldn't possible be the
same Mike Richards who constantly pushes for the Government intrusion as to who
you can live with, what you put in or take out your body, what you may or may
not eat or drink, and who or what you must worship.Really? who is
@Mike RichardsThe median Democrat in the House has a DW-NOMINATE score of
-.4 while the average Republican in Congress has a +.6 (0 is exactly moderate,
-1 and +1 are absolute extremes for each). Usually the majority party has a
score closer to 0 than the minority party since they hold more tossup seats but
that isn't even the case this time. These scores (for both parties) are the
most extreme they've been in 50 some odd years (the length of the
And here we go again Mr. Richards. Article one section eight clearly allows the
government to tax it's citizens for the general welfare of the nation. Thus
my point "The rules they formulated were not simple but in fact broad and
visionary", and to the point of JoeBlow, "The rules include Supreme
Court rulings.". The Supreme Court has ruled many times on what constitutes
the general welfare of the nation..including the ACA. I get it that you
don't believe any of this but it's reality. Some how you choose to
create your own sense of reality, which is your right. It just doesn't
make it real.
To "JoeBlow" the extremists on the left do in fact control the Democrat
party. How do you think they got the most left leaning Senator elected
President?To "pragmatistferlife" Democrats have not been
responsible for feeding the nation, nor have they been responsible for caring
for the poor. They are responsible for creating a dependent class of citizen
that cannot survive anymore without government assistance. They have aligned
themselves with Progressives in both parties to make it difficult for people to
rise up.To "ugottabkidn" collectivism doesn't work, it
never has and never will. Ask yourself this. What is the goal that
Progressives are trying to progress towards?Would you rather
conserve your freedoms or progress towards collectivism?
pragmatistferlife,Let's make an assuption that English is our
native language and that both of us have been educated in schools where English
was properly taught.Article 1, Section 8 is a single sentance. The
clause that you seem to be referring to, "To make all Laws which shall be
necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers," is a
dependant clause. i.e., it does not stand alone. It references the sixteen
preceeding dependant clauses enumerated in Section 8. The words, "Gerneral
Welfare" are not founf in Section 8.Some claim that "general
Wlfare" mentioned in the preamble gives Congress blanket authority to do
whatever it wants; why then is the military enumerated six times in Section 8?
It is also found in the preamble. According to those "experts" there
would have been no need to enumerate anything regarding the military in Section
8.The beauty of our freedom lies in the limited authority given by
the people to a "national level" of government. Examples exist
worldwide of the destruction to people and to nations when "rulers" rule
with heavy hands over the people.Love and respect the Constitution,
don't fight against it.
Yes, Jason is all about attention and the sour grape tea party needs new Bachman
Isn't the center line balance between extremes that the letter recommends
really the straight and narrow way that while hard to follow is always the
@Redshirt1701"Would you rather conserve your freedoms or progress
towards collectivism?"I consider that a faulty choice. For
instance, I believe universal healthcare strengthens freedom by helping us with
the right to life that we considered inalienable in the Declaration of
Personally -- I'd like to see the GOP continue it's
self-defeating suicidal leap off the uber-far-right-wing cliff of the political
stage once and for all.Perhaps then a new Majority Moderate party
ala Ronald Reagan's BIG tent party will emerge from the ashes.
I enjoy reading the postings on the Constitution. One thing many strict
constructionists such as Mike R. fail to agree with is found in Article 1
Section 8 and that is the "Necessary and Proper" clause. This wonderful
clause basically gives our government the power to institute, for example,
Obamacare. Now the SCOTUS has ruled on this and many are up in arms about the
current status of Obamacare. Best way to deal with this? Vote out those who are
in favor of it, which will never happen because we all want something for
nothing, as long as the other guy pays for it. Wth that said SCOTUS has the hast
word on all this, and I would much rather defer to them than to posters who have
never spent a day in a constitutional law class, much less served in the
atl134Salt Lake City, UT@Redshirt1701"Would you rather
conserve your freedoms or progress towards collectivism?"I
consider that a faulty choice. For instance, I believe universal healthcare
strengthens freedom by helping us with the right to life that we considered
inalienable in the Declaration of Independence.1:48 p.m. May 22,
2013========= Agreed.When we have a Society
of ever increaasing Haves, and Have Nots -- being led by the 'Haves,
and Have Mores' - ala, GW BushWe COLLECTIVELY loose our freedom
to the Plutocracy or Oligarchy....Precisely and ironically what we fought
the American Revolution over....and our fight for Freedom in the 1st place.Freedom and Justice for all - equally.having ALL things in common
is not just Freedom and Justice, ALL things means, ALL things.Why do you fight against the purist of all God's Doctrines?
To "atl134" you are wrong. Universal Healthcare destroys freedom
because it forces (enslaves) others to pay for your healthcare. The right to
life does not mean that your life will be prolonged through medical treatments.
The right to life is only that the government cannot take your life on a
whim.How does enslaving people through the tax code strengthen
freedom? As the current system shows, government run healthcare is bloated,
full of corruption, and easy to abuse. So taking reality into consideration,
how does a wasteful government program strengthen freedom when it forces others
to care for you?
@Redshirt1701 – “They are responsible for creating a dependent class
of citizen that cannot survive anymore without government assistance.”You mean those lazy mooching senior citizens (who account for 2/3 of all
entitlement spending)?@EJM and @atl134Well said!
The letter writer suggests that accommodation and inclusivity of diversity are
key to progress: that either everyone matters or no one matters. I'm
reminded of the words of John Stuart Mill who correctly observed that, "A
party of order or stability and a party of progress or reform are both necessary
elements of a healthy state of political life."
@kentI think you have a good idea, it really is not a worthwhile endeavor.
The reason there is no common ground is that he has abandoned any type of
Well, don't we have some amusement today?If I hadn't been
following the news for the past few weeks, I would have thought that it was the
Republicans who were in hot water for pretending that we have a King instead of
a President.Which party "owns" Benghazi?Which
party "owns" the I.R.S. scandal?Which party "owns"
the AP privacy scandal?Which party "owns" Fast and
Furious?Which party made rediculous claims about a "video"
causing terrorist attacks?Which party is twisting the words of the
Constitution to include "everything" for the "general Welfare"
and saying that the "foregoing" clause covers everything even though one
poster showed them the errors of their ways?It's amusing to see
that those on the left refuse to read the Constitution and that they refuse to
admit that do not have a clue about what it really says. All they talk about is
what they think it says.We can never move to the middle when one
party wants a King who hands out crumbs while the other party wants freedom.
To Mike R earlier today..."Article 5 of the Constitution clearly
spells out the process. Anyone who tells us that his modified version of the
Constitution takes precedence over the ratified version does understand either
the fact that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land or that it cannot
be changed by popular opinion or to suit political correctness."What then is the process to "create" an amendment if not *popular
at Redshirt1701 3:22 p.m. May 22"Universal Healthcare destroys
freedom because it forces (enslaves) others to pay for your healthcare."I rarely use my insurance so indirectly I'm paying for others &
destroying freedom in the process."How does enslaving people
through the tax code strengthen freedom?"How about... providing
for the common welfare & a chain is only as strong as the weakest link?
To Mike Richards..if the list of duties granted the government were to be
exclusive to the sixteen duties you reference why is there a preamble at all?
What is it's purpose if not to broadly state and give a vision for the
duties of the government? Also you are absolutely wrong about the section 8
saying anything about general welfare. It's in the first
paragraph/preamble " The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes,
Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common
defence[note 1] and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties,
Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States" By the
way I'm only stating what has been reality for some 230 years. Yours is
the outlier position.
To "GK Willington" who says that you have to buy insurance (pre-ACA)?
If you chose to not have insurance, you had that freedom, now you do not.As for providing "providing for the common welfare" how well did
that work for the U.S.S.R.? They provided for the common welfare and how free
were they?To "Tyler D" not just the seniors are dependent on
government, you also have the millions on food stamps and other social welfare
programs. How many seniors don't bother to save because they think that SS
will be sufficient? Just look at the inner cities where women have multiple
children, never get married, and live in a culture of poverty. Those used to be
the exception in our culture, now they are the norm.So how has
creating a dependent nation made us stronger, so far it has just put us deeper
in debt and made us lazy.
Isn't what matters most, isn't what we all want, simply to do the
"right thing"; to do what is "best" for ..."the
country", for "everyone", ...for me? The problematic condition of
humanity is that we can never find unanimity around this "right thing."
So, there is no way forward, there is no way to move at all, unless we learn to
compromise and work together. Blame whomever or whatever you want for partisan
gridlock there is no solution that does not recognize the imperative of
Utah voters, please do not move to the center. Keep moving right -- maybe to the
point creating a viable third party that further divides the conservative vote.
@Redshirt1701 – “…Those used to be the exception in our
culture, now they are the norm.”Yes, there is some truth to
what you’re saying, BUT, these issues did not suddenly appear on the scene
when Obama took office (and was given the worst economy since 1932), nor do they
drive the deficit in any significant way (with the exception of Medicaid).And yet the Right (for the last 4+ years) acts like this is all the
case… why? I wish you guys could see from outside your information bubble
how weak these arguments appear and the damage making them ad nauseam does to
your credibility.If we want to fix the deficit we need to fix senior
entitlements, period. Everything else is a red herring by comparison.
To "Tyler D" let me get this right. You agree that we used to be nation
of people that were self sufficient to some degree, and did not depend on
government for much. Then, starting with the Progressive movement in the
1930's we started to allow the government to do for us, what we should do
ourselves.Now, you say that I should get outside of my
"information bubble" and go along with the crowd. You realize that it
is the "information bubble" that conservatives use that is keeping us
from turning into a socialist state that will eventually collapse like much of
Europe is currently experiencing.Maybe, you need to put your
feelings on the shelf, and take a long, hard, and cold logical look at the
destruction that collectivism/progressivism brings. Yet it sounds great on
paper, but the human element destroys it every time.
@Redshirt1701 – “Now, you say that I should get outside of my
"information bubble" and go along with the crowd.”You
misunderstood my point… You should argue what you believe, but
there are ways to do so that are intellectually honest and show a grasp of
perspective.The point that I and many others have made on these
forums over the last 4+ years is that the Right seems to have lost this and in
some cases gone completely off the rails (e.g., Glenn Beck) in ways that are
just laughable that someone not in the bubble.The best examples of
this would be the scores of rants that began with a vengeance the day Obama took
office, many of which were bashing things that his predecessor did (debt,
bailouts, government programs like prescription drug plan, etc…).Regarding perspective, the rants regarding our Debt that attack all the
chicken feed stuff when the elephant in the room is senior entitlements could
fill volumes.So argue conservatism… please! Just know that
many of the ways it has been done lately do not reflect well on the intellectual
capabilities of those making the arguments.