| Author | Message | ||
     Sifo |
1. Why don't they fear the same thing when the risk of centralization of power takes the form of corporate america? 2. Why is it okay for government to tell us we can't do drugs in our own homes or other private places, who we can and can't engage in sexual relations with, who can and can't marry, etc.? Can you provide an example of your first point? I'm unaware of conservatives pushing for monopolies. On your second point, as Hootowl pointed out marriage has been around as a religious convention for thousands of years before our constitution was written. It is overreach of government that is now wanting to define marriage as something other than what it has been for thousands of years. Funny how the continual encroachment of big government into our private lives works. (Message edited by SIFO on August 18, 2011) | ||
| Hootowl |
That wasn't my point. Religion defined marriage, religion is free to redefine it. Some religions will marry gays, others will not. My point is that government should be neither sanctioning it nor banning it. There should be no tax benefit for being married. Hospitals should not have the right to dictate who can visit whom and when. The government should treat all individuals as individuals and not as members of a class. I want the government out of my personal life in every way, from the tax code to whether i can legally poison myself if I so choose. I should not have to get a permit from the state in order to get married. The gay marriage issue wouldn't exist if the government hadn't inserted itself into what is fundamentally a religious event. | ||
| Honolulu_blue_esq |
Sifo: "Can you provide an example of your first point? I'm unaware of conservatives pushing for monopolies." You are mischaracterizing my question. I said nothing about monopolies, which imply a single company or coalition of companies in a single trade pushing out all other competing companies in the same trade OR price fixing. What I asked was: Why don't they fear the same thing when the risk of centralization of power takes the form of corporate america? "On your second point, as Hootowl pointed out marriage has been around as a religious convention for thousands of years before our constitution was written. It is overreach of government that is now wanting to define marriage as something other than what it has been for thousands of years. Funny the continual encroachment of big government into our private lives works." Read hootowl's post below. I don't think you understood what he said either. | ||
| Sifo |
I guess I missed your point about centralization of power in corporate america. I just don't see it happening. Unions, the flip side of corporations have much more power in the government than corporations. My point on marriage wasn't to repeat what Hootowl said, but to build on that point. | ||
| Hootowl |
"Why don't they fear the same thing when the risk of centralization of power takes the form of corporate america?" Please elucidate. I can't think of an example, so I think I don't understand the question. | ||
| Mtjm2 |
Hbe , your starting to sound conservative ? The government can tell us all we can or can not VOTE drink smoke marie drive work FIGHT Fish Hunt Build Raise Im sure Im missing alot | ||
| Honolulu_blue_esq |
A good place to start is the relatively recent Citizen's United decision. It is a REALLY long decision, but the basic point conclusion of the Supreme Court was that Corporations are people to and you can't stop them from "political speech" through campaign contributions. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205. pdf Sifo: I'm not sure how what you said builds on Hoot's point about marriage. You are saying the government shouldn't be able to allow Gays to marry. Hoot is saying the government shouldn't be able to allow (or prevent) ANYONE to marry. | ||
| Sifo |
I don't know how you get the idea that I think government should be involved in marriage at all. My point is that government got involved in licensing it so they could tax it, now they want to redefine it. They shouldn't be involved in any of it. | ||
| Hootowl |
Corporations are made up of people. They are a group of people. Unions are a group of people, and they have been able to make unlimited contributions for years. How is that OK, if it isn't OK for a business? I'd be OK with shutting our corporate contributions if a similar restriction was placed on unions. | ||
| Honolulu_blue_esq |
Mtjm2: I don't know why you guys think liberals want government in everything and conservatives want it in nothing. That isn't the case at all. As I've said before, liberals largely want government in their business but not their bedroom. Conservatives largely want government in their bedroom but not their business. Libertarians are the only ones who don't want it in either. There are exceptions (like gun control as an example), but I think if you go policy by policy, you'll find this to be pretty accurate. | ||
| Honolulu_blue_esq |
Hoot: "I'd be OK with shutting our corporate contributions if a similar restriction was placed on unions." I completely agree with you on this point. | ||
| Hootowl |
And, I don't think being able to make political contributions qualifies as centralization of power by corporations. But to address your question (as I understand it) conservatives are OK with unlimited corporate contributions because it may serve as a balance to the power of the unions. I don't believe it will, because most corporate money flows nearly equally to both parties. | ||
| Honolulu_blue_esq |
Sifo: "I don't know how you get the idea that I think government should be involved in marriage at all. My point is that government got involved in licensing it so they could tax it, now they want to redefine it. They shouldn't be involved in any of it." I must have misunderstood you. I got the impression that you were supportive of candidates who argue for constitutional amendments defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Instead, it sounds like you are in the same camp as I am on this issue. My position is that no state agency should issue any marriage license to anyone. They can issue civil union certificates if they want, but not marriage licenses. | ||
| Honolulu_blue_esq |
hoot: "And, I don't think being able to make political contributions qualifies as centralization of power by corporations. " Im of the opinion (and I admit it is just opinion) that he who holds the purse strings decides the election. If corporations (and unions) have all the money, and if they are allowed to have a political voice, we've just centralized power. I think it has been this way for a long time. I don't think elected officials think first of the American people. I think their first thought is to how the decisions they make are going to affect their fundraising next time around, which means they don't want to piss of the folks with the power. | ||
| Reindog |
I agree. This is precisely an argument to vote for Tea Party candidates. They haven't been co-opted. Yet. Not all Tea Party members are religious just like not all Democrats are progressive. Some Tea Party members are nuts just like some Democrats are nuts. But their Conservative fiscal beliefs are beginning to resonate with the American people and this is why they are deserving of having a say in Congress. They should be thanked, not vilified, for their contributions in the ongoing debate about the deficit. | ||
| Fahren |
HBE, the bedroom/boardroom analogy is too simplistic. I think it all comes down to money. Let's look at Koch Industries, the Koch brothers, David and Charles. "Biggest billionares you've never heard of." David was a one-time VP candidate on the Libertarian ticket. They have poured millions into the tea party, making Americans believe that the fight for less govenment is a populist sentiment, not just a windfall for big business. So you would think they were all for limiting government. And they are - when it suits their bottom line. EPA reg's? We need fewer. Clean air and water? No need for government interference there. Government subsidies for ethanol? No problem with those - we can make a killing. Carbon credits - nah, we're ok with that governent scheme, too, cuz we can make a ton of money off that action, too. So govenment is bad - unless it sets up programs from which we can profit - then it's ok. Morally/ethically inconsistent, but absolutely straight-arrow consistent when it affects the bottom line. It's just about business (for them). http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica /2010/oct/25/tea-party-koch-brothers http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica /2011/apr/08/koch-brothers-lobbying http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica /2011/jun/22/koch-brothers-social-security | ||
| Mtjm2 |
Hbe . I get that from the NEA ! I get that from Obahma ! I get that from the LIBTARDS that think the government should take care of them from birth to death ! I cant spell well enough to say what I want to say , but you get the jest . The government has allowed a race of people to become completely dependant and demand more .Or there will be lawlesness Thats there words not mine . And they will support one party till the end . WHY ? | ||
| Spiderman |
Yep only blacks abuse the system. My wife, while looking for a job out of law school worked for an elder law attorney. This guy helped rich people hide their money so they could get on medicade and other govt assistance. All rich, white, conservatives. Needless to say she found a new job quickly. People abuse the system all the time. Do not stick it on one class, race or other. | ||
| Mtjm2 |
Spiderman ! The government caused and allows it ! All rich , white , conservatives. I think or hope you are smarter than that ! 35,000.00 A plate dinner ? 10,000.00 a picture ? YUP , your right ! Only RICH white , CONSERVATIVES !!! | ||
| Hootowl |
"I think their first thought is to how the decisions they make are going to affect their fundraising next time around, which means they don't want to piss of the folks with the power." I certainly can't argue with that. The amount of money required to mount a successful campaign is sickening. If we had true citizen legislators and not career politicians, campaign money would not be an issue, and the contributions/bribing would vanish. We get the government we vote for though, and we keep reelecting the same jackasses that caused the problem in the first place. And when I say "the problem", well...pick one. | ||
| Honolulu_blue_esq |
Reindog: "They should be thanked, not vilified, for their contributions in the ongoing debate about the deficit." I actually agree with you here, and I've said it before on this forum. I respect what the tea party has been able to do. I think they are largely responsible for making us really look at the budget and the debt and say, what the hell are we doing? But there is a fine line between being helpful and hurtfull. Now that our attention is on the issue, my opinion is that we ought to be working together to solve it instead of taking the position that every idea the "other side" has is per se bad unless the "correct side" thought of it first. And that is the perception I think the tea party is getting with its refusal to compromise - right or wrong. | ||
| Mtjm2 |
Court , Maxine , Nancy ,Barney , aint goin knowere . Where they gunna go , to the GOP ? | ||
| Reindog |
Obama thinks Maxine Waters can pound sand. Obama can rip his clothes off while howling at the moon on national television and he KNOWS that the majority of the Black vote will still go to him in November 2012 simply because he has a Black father. Obama KNOWS that he can safely ignore American-Africans. There is hope though as Blacks and Progressives will become frustrated and may stay home on Erection Day. | ||
| Reindog |
Oops....Court just did a magic disappearing act and I was responding to that which is no longer here. | ||
| Blake |
>>> Conservatives don't like big government because they fear the centralization of power in the hands of a few. Our nation's founders agree. In fact that was the singular issue of utmost concern in their minds. History is rife with examples of brutal oppression, mass murder, and genocide bearing witness to the undeniable validity of such concern. There are no examples of corporate malfeasance that even begin to compare in scale or effect. None. Further, citizens may choose whether or not to engage in commerce with corporations, to purchase their products or services or not. We have no such leeway with our federal government other than to leave the country. Corporations are subject to criminal and civil law. If they misbehave, they are held to account. See Enron and friends. Corporations cannot write their own laws to which we are subject, or have their own armed police and military forces; they cannot imprison us. Is it really that difficult to see why one is a vast overarching threat and the other is not so much? Wars and genocides are perpetrated by governments. People are imprisoned by governments. The fruits of our efforts, ideas, and labor are taken from us by threat of force by government. Corporations are a joke in comparison. Prohibit monopolies, criminal behavior, and usury and all is good with corporations. The Citizens United decision was not about campaign contributions; those have been and remain limited to something like $2000 per donor per recipient whether donated by private citizen, corporation, union, or PAC. The Citizens United decision was about political speech in general, spending money to make a political advertisement for instance. Prior to the decision, corporations were prohibited from putting out more than a limited amount of political speech based upon how much they paid for it. It was a clear violation of the 1st amendment. The court ruled as such. >>> The tea party is the closest thing to a major libertarianism movement we've had in years, except that it still wants the government to regulate social issues (who can get hitched, what you can put in your body, etc). >>> liberals largely want government in their business but not their bedroom. I don't know any conservative or tea partier who wants government in the bedroom. You frame the issue falsely. The issue is not what folks might consent to do in private. The issue is a redefinition of the institution of marriage. How about this: I feel sad, a victim of prejudice, and disrespected because I cannot call call myself "attorney". How is it okay that bigoted types won't let me do so? It would make me happy, and I want to call myself an "attorney", so let's pass a law that says that anyone who would like to do so can call themselves an attorney? Why not? Wouldn't that obliterate the value and true meaning of the word "attorney" and the concept of what it means to be an attorney? So too the redefinition of "marriage" obliterates and devalues its meaning and concept. That is not just opinion. Wherever cultures have seen fit to equate homosexual unions to marriage, marriage rates have plummeted. Why bother when it means so little? As to why our government saw fit to recognize marriage as a legal issue, it is a contract between a man and a woman, and traditionally though not so much today, the wife was dependent upon the man who was typically the wage earner. It was too easy for a scoundrel to skip out on his wife leaving her with nothing, thus the legal system/gov't rightly became involved. Maybe they could have avoided the term "marriage" in favor of "union" or "partnership"? I dunno. As to why our gov't bestowed a few special benefits to married folks... they deemed it good to help foster and promote what they found to be the single most important institution contributing to the success and prosperity of children and of America. They promoted the family, that which was undeniably good, beneficial, and by far the best means for raising the most prosperous, most successful American children. They also recognized that the committed union of a man and woman is the only union inherently productive, able to procreate, and is by far the best means for raising successful children. Homosexual unions have no such inherent procreative ability and they are not the optimal unit for raising children. The idea of a committed union between one man and one woman, what we call "marriage" absolutely deserves special recognition for it's very unique and special benefits to society. It merits a singularly applicable name, marriage. If it doesn't, then what does? Surely not "attorney."  (Message edited by blake on August 18, 2011) | ||
| Mtjm2 |
Welcome back Blake ! Been waitin ! | ||
| Blake |
>>> Now that our attention is on the issue, my opinion is that we ought to be working together to solve it instead of taking the position that every idea the "other side" has is per se bad unless the "correct side" thought of it first. And that is the perception I think the tea party is getting with its refusal to compromise - right or wrong. Compromise is how we got to where we are (excepting the rammed down our throats corrupt, gotta pass it to know what's in it Obamacare). When do we say "enough!"? | ||
| Blake |
And frankly, I don't know any conservatives who reject ideas out of hand based on who's idea they might be. I tire of such straw man arguments. | ||
| Blake |
Thanks Mark! Busy-busy lately.  | ||
| Sifo |
I must have misunderstood you. I got the impression that you were supportive of candidates who argue for constitutional amendments defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Instead, it sounds like you are in the same camp as I am on this issue. My position is that no state agency should issue any marriage license to anyone. They can issue civil union certificates if they want, but not marriage licenses. It looks like we do agree on this point. What I was trying to point out beyond Hootowl's comment was that once government gets involved they continue to sink their roots deeper and deeper. They start by simply licensing what has been defined by religion for countless generations and the next thing you know they are redefining what marriage is. The thirst for power from government is relentless. That is why I feel it is so important to fight against any quest for power beyond what is specified in the constitution. Im of the opinion (and I admit it is just opinion) that he who holds the purse strings decides the election. If corporations (and unions) have all the money, and if they are allowed to have a political voice, we've just centralized power. This seems to be a point that we disagree on. Power was more centralized with the unions until recently. The recent decision by the court helped to spread the power. That's not to say that I'm completely comfortable with unions or corporations having so much political power however. In politics money is power and both groups have a lot of it. I don't really have a solution to this though as I have to agree with the court that both corporations and unions are made of groups of people who's rights are guaranteed by the constitution. I'm not sure how you curb their political spending while not trampling on their rights of free speech. At the end of the day the voters have the real power. As a nation we have allowed ourselves to become ignorant of who and what we are really voting for. My wife's parents repeatedly vote for candidates that are in conflict with virtually every issue that you can discuss with them simply because the union tells them who to vote for. It's bewildering. |
