Creating More Conservatives

John Hawkins over at Townhall wrote an excellent piece here about conservative outreach and how badly the GOP has been at it over the last decade or so. I completely agree with his game plan which includes, but are not limited to:

1) We’re not reaching out to people who disagree with us

2) We’ve gotten lazy about making people’s lives better

3) We need to focus more on entertaining than informing

4) We get too impressed by the “more conservative than you” game

5) We refuse to challenge liberal control of cultural institutions

This dove tails nicely with my opinion I expressed the other day of “dumbing down” our message and going into precincts we usually avoid. It also speaks to the strategy of incrementalism which we need to employ, and employ now. Considering the utter economic and social disaster that progressive policies have brought about, winning the short term by taking the Senate this fall should be a no brainer, but winning the long term will require a more methodical strategy, and I think Hawkins has identified 5 good starting points. I am curious as to what other conservative have to say on this, so have at it.

 

Advertisements

178 thoughts on “Creating More Conservatives

  1. Amazona May 17, 2014 / 3:30 pm

    (1) We’re not reaching out to people who disagree with us

    I’d say we don’t know how to reach out to people who don’t agree with us. We are so insistent on converting people to our entire philosophy we forget that it can be an incremental process. So if someone really believes that government has a responsibility to take care of people, instead of demanding that this belief be abandoned or changed, we should focus on the idea of “OK, though I don’t agree with you, let’s start with how to do that without violating the Constitution—-that is, at the state and local level”. Once you get off the Feds Must Do Everything Express, and into working within the Constitution to achieve goals now owned by the feds, the battle is more than half won.

    (2) We’ve gotten lazy about making people’s lives better

    This rubbed me the wrong way. Once we start out talking about making peoples’ lives better we are talking not about small government vs big government but about what WE think big government ought to do. No. We have gotten lazy about communicating that we are about creating an environment conducive to allowing and encouraging people to make their own lives better, if they want to.

    (3) We need to focus more on entertaining than informing

    Not an either/or as far as I am concerned. If we make it an either/or we are dumbing down the entire process. I think we need to make the transfer of information less boring and arduous—and I’d start by stopping those horrible campaign ads on TV, with the boring spokesperson droning on in a boring voice against a dreary background while intoning miserable and negative messages.

    (4) We get too impressed by the “more conservative than you” game

    Here I finally agree. We have seen this here on this blog, the competition for who is most virtuous both morally and politically. It’s counterproductive, except to the egos of those involved.

    (5) We refuse to challenge liberal control of cultural institutions

    Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. We need to start doing this every time we see it. Just poking fun at Diane Sawyer’s woefully creased brow as she mournfully murmured about the “CONTROVERSIAL” whatever she was trying to convince us was badbadbad would have been a start. (I see she has had Botox and now that brow is not only creased in consternation, it probably can never crease again. How ever will she be able to taint her commentary with the message that she is talking about something that should worry us?)

    I think the outrage over Common Core is a wonderful start, as the program has given us so much to work with in pointing out the toxicity of Leftist indoctrination. On the other hand, it does not help to have conservatives, like Condi Rice, bow down to mob rule and let themselves be run off. David Horowitz stands up to the mobs, Ann Coulter stands up to the mobs, Tom Tancredo stands up to the mobs. We need people like Rice to do the same, to stand up in a commencement speech or whatever the venue and say “I am here because I still believe in free speech and I still define “tolerance” and “diversity” in ways far different from those who fought so hard to silence me here today”.

    • Cluster May 17, 2014 / 4:10 pm

      Re: #2 – I think government can make peoples lives better, by tax reform, by entitlement reform, by allowing states to administer some programs and thereby improving efficiencies, by a balanced budget staving off inflation and lowering energy costs, by securing the border, by actually prosecuting crime and standing up for the rule of law, etc.

      These are the things we should speak of loudly and proudly. And I don’t see people like Jeb Bush or Chris Christie supporting these issues.

      • Amazona May 18, 2014 / 10:04 am

        I think we are saying much the same thing here, because you are talking about policies which free people to explore, develop and profit from their own initiative, not about government programs which actively try to “make peoples’ lives better” by making decisions for them and giving them stuff.

  2. Cluster May 17, 2014 / 4:52 pm

    The intellectual progressive movement led by the mental heavyweight Nancy Pelosi told Berkeley grads to be “disruptors”, and went on to say:

    Pelosi also touched on campaign finance, saying the Supreme Court “equates money with speech, opening the floodgates to secret, special interest money in our elections.” But graduates could disrupt the system.

    I am sure she is speaking about Tom Steyer and the billion dollars he dangled in front of Democrats that directly led to the indefinite delay of the Keystone pipeline.

    Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/206417-pelosi-tells-grads-be-disruptors#ixzz320Y7WC60
    Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

    • M. Noonan May 17, 2014 / 6:11 pm

      It is really sickening considering that Nancy got her start in politics by using illegal campaign financing tactics.

    • Amazona May 18, 2014 / 10:12 am

      ” I am sure she is speaking about Tom Steyer and the billion dollars he dangled in front of Democrats…”

      ….or the billions spread around by convicted criminal George Soros.

      …..or the millions spread around by Michael Bloomberg, who dumped some of it in Colorado last year to try to influence state politics regarding infringements of Second Amendment rights.

      (P.S. Bills were passed by the Dem statehouse and signed by the Dem governor. Two of those Dem state officials were recalled and a third bailed out before being recalled so the governor could appoint another Dem, to avoid having all three seats taken by Republicans. Said governor, Hickenlooper, also known as The Looper, is now very vulnerable because of his support of this movement and his allowing Bloomberg to call the shots in our state, and Senator Mark Udall, who couldn’t vote on the issues but who publicly supported them, is now tied with a potential candidate who has not even been nominated and who is really only known in his own Congressional district. Until the nomination, the state and national GOP can’t support this probable candidate but in the meantime Udall is panicked and desperate, flooding the airwaves with vile slanderous ads, and the tone here is still pretty much Anyone But Udall. Bloomberg’s money is creating a backlash here.)

  3. M. Noonan May 17, 2014 / 6:21 pm

    Not reaching out is our biggest weakness, I think. To be sure, Karl Rove gets a lot more grief than he should these days, but he was (and is) wrong in trying to parse an election district by district and concentrating all resources only on those we can, allegedly, win. Unless we drive into the blue areas, we’re just playing defense and while we’ll some times come out on top in an election, the ability to really reform our nation requires us to win for about 20 straight years. To do this, we have to get people to vote for us who never have – and never would think of voting for us, unless we go an appeal to them.

    I bring this up on conservative blogs, etc a lot – my best for-instance is regarding welfare. To talk of “welfare bums” and cutting welfare is entirely counter-productive. No one is more aware than I am just how much waste, fraud and abuse there is in welfare. Additionally, we all know that if a person stays on welfare for a long time, it becomes demoralizing and the person becomes ever less likely to become independent (this, of course, is precisely what our liberals want – slaves who will beg for crumbs rather than independent citizens). But we can’t just go out there and bash welfare.

    To be sure, someone who is third generation welfare will not be won over – we’re rather stuck with that person being on welfare with only a small chance they’ll ever get off it. But there are literal millions of people – a lot of them single mothers – who work a full time job but who also get welfare to make ends meet. To appeal to them, we need a program which won’t bash welfare, but will bash the bureaucrats, union bosses and corrupt government contractors who siphon off welfare, thus leaving less available for those who are actually in need. We also need to appeal to that single mom with programs to help her pay for day care (not as an ideal, of course – but day care is fabulously expensive if its any good, at all, and millions want some help on that…of course, we’d do it free market: cutting regulations and red tape, etc, as well as offering higher subsidies for day care the more hours per week a parent works). We also need to really hammer the unions and the bureaucrats over the lousy education system and the poor policing of poor and minority areas (they are poorly policed for two reasons – first off, race-hustlers like Sharpton in town after town have raised so much ruckus that the police stay away for fear of causing a racially-charged incident; secondly, because the people living in those areas simply don’t have the ear of city hall). If we do this, we’ll start to get some of these so-far stalwart Democrat voters over to our side – not a majority (not by a long sight) but instead of losing them by 70 points, we’ll lose them by 40 or 50…and that is enough to turn several States red at the Presidential level.

    Over time, the positive feed back loop (the more you work, the more welfare you get, but that means you’ll also eventually make enough to get off welfare) will build a strong, urban constituency for us which will also result in less government spending as ever fewer people need welfare. Its win all around – but until we go out and do it, nothing will happen.

    • Amazona May 18, 2014 / 10:27 am

      I’m not sure I see much of a difference between Rove’s strategy and your ideas, as your ideas depend on winning in the first place. I can see a dual strategy, each of which is equally important——winning by concentrating on the areas that are most likely to provide the necessary votes, coupled with outreach to explain conservatism and implement the kinds of programs and policies you are talking about in the hard-core heart of Dem support.

      I think the most we could expect from the Dependent Class would be a reduction, no matter how slight, of fear and loathing caused by changes in entitlement programs, an understanding of why the changes are being made even if we don’t get people lined up to volunteer giving up their goodies. That would be a start.

      I think we need to start appealing to the obviously smart and capable people who now support Dems and by doing so also support radical Leftist policies and ideology, by starting to make it clear that when they vote for issues that have such emotional appeal for them, they are really voting for a clearly defined political philosophy and form of overall government that they might not like. We have seen here that even the most obsessed Liberals, those so dedicated they seek out online forums to spend a lot of time expressing their feelings, don’t have a clue about the actual form of government they are really supporting when they strike out at what they think is conservatism, or expound on the glories of Mike being able to call Gary his husband. How can we expect any more comprehension and analysis from those whose support is pretty much limited to voting and the occasional offhand slam at some Republican?

      We have a whole demographic of bright and well-meaning people who can be reached, I believe, if we make a point of not only stepping away from emotionalism but making it clear this is what we are doing, so eventually the emotional aspect of politics has less status than the thoughtful side. And once we have people thinking instead of feeling, we have them. It will not be a quick or easy process, we may have to do it one person at a time, through conversations and blogs and occasional incursions into the Complicit Agenda Media, but I don’t see another way.

      • Cluster May 18, 2014 / 11:04 am

        I agree with the incremental approach, but there has to be some passion behind it. Currently, the progressive democrats are campaigning on, and governing against the desires of the majority of Americans, and the following is just one small example:

        Seven in 10 registered voters are in favor of identification laws in order to root out fraud at the ballot box, according to a Fox News poll released this week. The survey found majority support in every major demographic, including black voters and Democrats.

        Progressive Democrats, and actually most Democrats for that matter, are not free thinking people. They are group think people, afraid to express an independent, “against the grain” thought. In short, they are people of little courage. So it is important that conservatives remind voters every day that while their local Democrat may sound reasonable on the campaign stump, and is a nice guy or gal, if elected, they will simply become a cog in the wheel of a leftist regime and will vote on policies as they are told by the leftist elites. This has happened time and time again.

        Sensible Voter ID laws are supported by the majority, but Democrats oppose them. The ACA is wildly unpopular with Americans, yet Democrats shoved it down our throats on a purely partisan vote. School vouchers are popular with the majority of Americans, yet Democrats oppose them. The Keystone Pipeline is widely supported by the majority including unions yet Democrats oppose it. Any Democrat in any district, despite their rhetoric, will fall right in line with these positions if elected and that fact needs to be pointed out.

        Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/206300-poll-70-percent-support-voter-id-laws#ixzz324yNmjo3
        Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

      • Amazona May 18, 2014 / 1:36 pm

        And here we are back at Identity Politics. Most people simply accept this without thinking—-a black president, a woman president, and so on. But I think a lot of them would realize, if they thought about it, how silly this is. All they wanted was a black president, and all they got was a man in the Oval Office who is half black.

        I don’t think it will be a huge job to point out the foolishness of Identity Politics, because once you think about it, it simply does not make sense.

  4. Cluster May 17, 2014 / 10:22 pm

    Here is solid proof of why we need to create more conservatives. The following is quote from a progressive that on the surface is mind numbing:

    It must be such a sad life to be a conservative–you have to spend every waking moment being angry, fearful, and paranoid, usually about stuff that doesn’t even exist. I fail to understand the appeal of such a life, but evidently, it’s the life they want.

    Now mind you, this quote comes from a person fully invested in an ideology that claims we have 500 days left until climate chaos, that ten years ago predicted the Arctic ice shelf would disappear, that everyone is racist, that everything is unfair, that the rich are evil and destroying politics, and that Christians are extremists.

    We do need to save them from themselves. Poor souls are lost in the woods.

    • Amazona May 18, 2014 / 9:58 am

      Cluster, this is just another example of Liberalism being the short cut to the Higher Moral Ground.

      Without doing a thing, this person is claiming mental and emotional superiority over nearly half of the people in this country (and no doubt many more than that, if the term were accurately defined) by simply inventing hateful characteristics of a philosophy he doesn’t even understand.

      You say this person is “…. fully invested in an ideology…” I’m betting that he is not actually invested in the political ideology at all, but is merely a moth drawn to the flame of validation and encouragement of his innate nastiness, and invested in only the superficial issues behind which the true ideology lurks.

    • Amazona May 18, 2014 / 10:00 am

      BTW, this person is lost to conservatism, because conservatism is based on rational thinking.

      And his need to hate will always trump any tiny voice in the midst of all that negativity which might be asking for a fact or two.

    • watsonthethird May 18, 2014 / 2:35 pm

      Well, first off, Cluster, here’s (edited for decency sake) the source of the comment.

      Second, if we’re talking about “claiming mental and emotional superiority,” you’re the one that claims that _you_ need to save _him_. How charitable. No claims of superiority there. And Amazona is the one who implies only people who think like her are rational. How condescending.

      Third, you put a bunch of words and thoughts into the speaker’s mouth, which is your typical MO. Why don’t you actually ask him if he believes those things? You don’t have to answer; you prefer to make things up about people.

      • Cluster May 18, 2014 / 4:59 pm

        Watson, go back and read what I said. I said that those words were written by someone who is “fully invested in an ideology” that makes those claims. Whether or not the person wholly endorses those positions is immaterial. Supporting the ideology is bad enough.

        This nuance may be hard for you to grasp, but then again, I don’t care.

        And thanks for the laugh about making stuff up about people. You’re the king at that. Remember, I am the one that doesn’t care if other people have health care since I have mine. That was your little gem.

      • watsonthethird May 18, 2014 / 7:07 pm

        So Cluster, is it fair to say that any cockamamie theory by a conservative should be linked to your ideology? I don’t think so. You just create straw men because you can’t argue the issue itself. We’re all used to it.

      • Cluster May 18, 2014 / 8:11 pm

        I always win the argument with you Watson. Everything I pointed out is fact. On top of that, a clear majority of people disapprove of the President, and disapprove of the direction of the country. Just like Obama, your opinions are childish, and your policies, and results there of, are complete and utter failures. That again is a fact. Indisputable.

  5. watsonthethird May 18, 2014 / 3:07 pm

    Sensible Voter ID laws are supported by the majority, but Democrats oppose them. The ACA is wildly unpopular with Americans, yet Democrats shoved it down our throats on a purely partisan vote.

    Cluster, if we’re going to simply go by whatever the majority wants, then when can we get started with universal background checks for gun purchases, since 9 in 10 Americans are in favor of it? I’m sure you’ll support this solely on that basis. I look forward to your strident advocacy.

    And can conservatives stop calling for the repeal of the Affordable Care Act? After all, a majority of Americans favor keeping the law as is, or keeping it with fixes. “Nearly six in ten (58 percent) say they want their representative in Congress to work to improve the law, while just over a third (35 percent) want them to work on repealing it and replacing it with something else.”

    According to the Gallop poll tracking Americans’ opinions about Roe v. Wade, a majority of American do not want the law overturned, as opposed to only 29% who do. Can conservatives stop trying to assert their minority views, please?

    Another poll says, “At least 75% of those surveyed say the United States should take steps soon to try to prepare for global warming, even if other nations do less.” Well, I’m sure you’ll be first in line to get started, especially in parched Arizona.

    Per the Washington Post, “A record-high 59 percent say they support same-sex marriage, while 34 percent are opposed.” According to your thinking, screw all the luddites who are still opposed; they’ve been overrun by the majority.

    Per a January Pew Research, “73% of the public favors raising the federal minimum wage from its current level of $7.25 an hour to $10.10 an hour. And 63% back a one-year extension of unemployment benefits for those who have been out of work a long time.” Why are Republicans in Congress dragging their feet, subverting the will of the majority?

    (I tried posting with links to the polls, but it got held in moderations because of multiple links.)

    • Cluster May 18, 2014 / 5:10 pm

      I support back ground checks

      The ACA is not popular, is ruining the economy, and people don’t want it
      http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html

      Nobody here wants to outlaw abortion, those are just the voices in your head

      Global warming as an issue rates way down the scale in American priorities. And just a heads up – it’s called “global” warming; so what makes brain dead progressives like you think that only American solutions will resolve the issue? Especially since we not the worlds worst violator.

      Not even all gay people want gay marriage, I happen to know one. But this is a good example of losing the hearts and minds of real people. Keep at it.

      And the fact that Democrats are championing a minimum wage increase, is proof positive you have no idea what to do with the economy. God help us all if this is your answer. The state of CT raised their minimum wage to $10.10, so does that mean there will be no more poor people?

      Watson, you’re a typical brain dead CA progressive. Your state is a complete F-ing mess as result of morons like you.

      • 02casper May 18, 2014 / 7:09 pm

        “I support back ground checks”
        Something we agree on, although I doubt that many of your fellow Conservatives would agree with us.

        “The ACA is not popular, is ruining the economy, and people don’t want it”
        Individual parts of it are, which is why most people want to improve it rather than end it. And it’s not hurting the economy.

        “Nobody here wants to outlaw abortion, those are just the voices in your head”
        No, those would be the voices of the other Conservatives on this blog.

        “Global warming as an issue rates way down the scale in American priorities.”
        Which doesn’t mean it isn’t an issue we should be concerned about.

        ” And just a heads up – it’s called “global” warming; so what makes brain dead progressives like you think that only American solutions will resolve the issue? Especially since we not the worlds worst violator.”
        Which is even more reason for us to take a leadership role.

        “Not even all gay people want gay marriage, I happen to know one.”
        No one said all gays want gay marriage. Most however do.
        “But this is a good example of losing the hearts and minds of real people. Keep at it”.
        Since 59% of the real people are on our side, I would say your side is losing the Hearts and minds.

        “And the fact that Democrats are championing a minimum wage increase, is proof positive you have no idea what to do with the economy. God help us all if this is your answer. The state of CT raised their minimum wage to $10.10, so does that mean there will be no more poor people?”
        The fact that you oppose it is proof you don’t no what to do with the economy. No one claims it will eliminate poverty.

      • M. Noonan May 19, 2014 / 12:41 am

        Cluster,

        Well, actually, some of us here do want to outlaw elective abortion. That is what being a pro-life fanatic is all about. But, I know what you’re saying – no one, for instance, is going to propose in Congress in 2015 a ban on abortion…the political will for such a thing is just not there right now. The United States grows more pro-life all the time, which is why we see increasing support for informed consent and late term ban laws…over time, I expect this to become a majority in favor of an outright ban on elective abortion. But that is in God’s good time – meanwhile, we pro-lifers will just keep working away at it.

    • Cluster May 18, 2014 / 5:25 pm

      Let me give you another perspective on abortion that you should think about.

      Essentially what progressives like you are telling women is that if they get pregnant, that’s their problem. Progressives like you don’t hold the man responsible whatsoever, and have no plans to ever hold the man accountable. Nope, it’s the woman’s problem. Now, if the woman wants to kill that baby, well then you’ll see to it that other people pay for it, but if she wants to keep the child, well then again, she’s on her own, and on top of that she will most likely send that child to an inferior school run by progressive unions. You’re a heck of a guy Watson.

      • watsonthethird May 18, 2014 / 7:12 pm

        Cluster, nothing you have said refutes the majority opinions I cited. Which is not surprising, because they are facts. I don’t know why you’re trying to raise any objections. You’re the one that advocates the notion that whatever the majority wants, we all should get. So:

        Universal background checks on all gun sales.
        No repeal of the ACA, only fixes, if that.
        No chipping away at Roe v. Wade.
        Raise the minimum wage.
        Same sex marriage is the law of the land.

        All of these are supported by your ideology of majority rule. While your ideology may be misguided, your support of all of the above is paving the way toward you becoming a progressive. Good for you.

      • Cluster May 18, 2014 / 8:04 pm

        I have never explicitly said that simple majorities should rule. You’re an absolute, abject moron. The ideology you subscribe to has ruined this country, period. That is a fact and your ideology is better silenced. That day is coming.

      • J. R. Babcock (@JRBabcock) May 18, 2014 / 7:38 pm

        Cluster, nothing you have said refutes the majority opinions I cited. Which is not surprising, because they are facts.

        I’m not sure how one even attempts to debate someone who thinks that opinions are facts, but that seems to be the majority “opinion” on the left.

      • watsonthethird May 18, 2014 / 7:53 pm

        I’m not sure how one even attempts to debate someone who thinks that opinions are facts, but that seems to be the majority “opinion” on the left.

        J.R., you missed the point entirely. The point is that Cluster complained above that Democrats were obstructing things that the majority of Americans want; how dare they! But if that’s Cluster’s criteria for governance, then he should gladly accept all of the items I cited, each of which is supported by the majority of Americans according to recent polling. I’m not confusing fact with opinions. The “fact” is the result of the polls, which measures the opinions of Americans. According to Cluster’s ideology, such results are what should guide policy in this country.

      • dbschmidt May 18, 2014 / 8:25 pm

        Stupid is as Watson & Casper does. If I get the energy (which wouldn’t be much of a requirement) I will refute your lunacy just for fun.

      • Cluster May 18, 2014 / 8:32 pm

        Listening to, and being governed by these insufferable morons is more than any rational, sane person should ever have to put up with. You should see the website they set up – it’s an insane asylum. You would think that they would step back and analyze the results of their high minded ideals, but nooooo. They don’t even have the brains to do that. I am done even entertaining them with conversation – it’s really just time to wipe them off the electoral map.

      • watsonthethird May 18, 2014 / 11:24 pm

        I have never explicitly said that simple majorities should rule.

        Yes, I know. Your post of 11:04 a.m. complained about what a terrible thing it is that Democrats enact programs that are not supported by the majority. The implication is that no programs should be enacted that aren’t supported by the majority. But of course, I do understand that what you meant was that no programs should be enacted by Democrats that aren’t supported by the majority. You just expose your hypocrisy by failing to acknowledge it.

      • watsonthethird May 18, 2014 / 11:27 pm

        Stupid is as Watson & Casper does. If I get the energy (which wouldn’t be much of a requirement) I will refute your lunacy just for fun.

        Oh, DB, I truly hope that you muster the energy to refute our supposed lunacy. I mean, if it is so obvious it should be a simple matter for you to do so. How much energy can it really take? Please, dazzle us with your brilliance. Please explain what Cluster meant by his comment of 11:04 a.m. Thank you so much. I will keep checking back in eager anticipation of your reply.

      • Cluster May 19, 2014 / 7:45 am

        Watson, I should know that I have to dumb things down for you, but at this site I expect to be speaking to people of a higher reading comprehension. It is your party that believes a simple majority of 51% (think: Harry Reid) should rule, and that any further debate should be shut down. I would never advocate simple majority rule, as I previously said, and I guess that is what confused you. Although I am quite sure a lot of things confuse you.

      • watsonthethird May 18, 2014 / 11:28 pm

        You should see the website they set up – it’s an insane asylum.

        Yes, you are all invited. Click on my name above this comment. Cheers.

      • Cluster May 19, 2014 / 7:37 am

        People on this site are personally attacked on a regular basis on your site, a childish and disturbing fact that I tried to put an end to, and made policy against, but the pathology was so deep a new site was started to continue the practice. And now you want these folks to join? Really?

      • watsonthethird May 19, 2014 / 12:05 pm

        Personally attacked, Cluster? Okay, in this thread alone you’ve called me “brain dead,” an “absolute abject moron,” and “a failure on every level.” dbschmidt referred to me and Casper as “stupid.” (Oh, by the way, db, I’m still waiting for you to refute my “lunacy,” which should take no time at all. What gives?)

        Nobody engages in more personal attacks that you, Cluster. Get a grip.

      • Cluster May 19, 2014 / 12:26 pm

        You are right. The difference is, I don’t invite you here and I don’t attack you in absentia.

      • watsonthethird May 19, 2014 / 1:53 pm

        And not only do you bring me up frequently in various commentary, you attacked meursault in this thread in absentia, as well. You cherry picked one of his comments on the blog that can’t be named here, but can be found by clicking on my name above this comment, and then ascribed all sorts of ideologies to him. It’s just what you do. Denying it in the very same thread just makes you look silly.

      • dbschmidt May 19, 2014 / 8:48 pm

        First and Foremost Watson, et.al., it all comes down to one word: Constitutionality.
        Before you have a heart attack—let me explain. Chief Justice Roberts, as much as I disagree with his ruling, never made the ACA Constitutional but rather put it back in the hands of the CongressCritters as a tax knowing full well that all taxes have to originate from the House and not the Senate.

        Universal background checks on all gun sales.
        Already have it and before you can say “Gun shows” it was the BATFE that turned down the NRA proposal (1975) to have one desk/checkpoint at every gun show so even private purchases could be checked.

        No repeal of the ACA, only fixes, if that.
        Obamacare remains unpopular: 53% against ~ 41% for from CBS whereas CNN/ORC shows 57% against ~ 39% supporting. There goes your ideological “majority.” IMHO, this will be found unconstitutional in present form but there are parts I do like.

        No chipping away at Roe v. Wade.
        What? You are against providing those poor and unfortunate women the same standards as every other health facility? Even Roe wants it overturned but I guess that doesn’t matter to you.

        Raise the minimum wage.
        Too what? Explain your business background and basis for the amount. If you say $10.10—then why not $50.50, hell, $150.75/per hour should do. Also, in the nasty “War on Women”—why does the Whitehouse pay 17% less to women in the same exact positions as men? IMHO, there should never have been a “minimum wage” and it should be abolished.

        Same sex marriage is the law of the land.
        Talk about BS — 3 ~ 8% of the population can dictate what the rest of the country has to knuckle under? If you want equal legal rights under the law—you already have it but you want to force everyone to accept your assimilation of a term-marriage.

        Maybe you should take the Hillsdale Constitution 101 like Casper; nevertheless, it would end up helping you like it did Casper. Apparently not at all.

      • watsonthethird May 20, 2014 / 12:09 pm

        First and Foremost Watson, et.al., it all comes down to one word: Constitutionality.

        Wow. So this was your long-awaited takedown of Watson? The one that took so little energy it required 24 hours for you to write?

        db, with all respect, you missed the point. To belabor it (since you missed it the first, second and third time), your pal Cluster objects to Democrats pursuing legislation that isn’t supported by the majority of Americans. He believes the will of the majority should dictate policy regardless of the rights of the minority, except when it comes to Republicans pursuing legislation. In response, I listed a number of things that the majority of Americans support, according to recent polling.

        Your statement, “3 ~ 8% of the population can dictate what the rest of the country has to knuckle under?” shows that you failed to comprehend the point. As I pointed out already, 59% of Americans support same-sex marriage. That’s way more than enough for Cluster to never again object to any legislation supporting same-sex marriage, don’t you think?

      • Cluster May 20, 2014 / 12:16 pm

        He believes the will of the majority should dictate policy regardless of the rights of the minority, except when it comes to Republicans pursuing legislation.

        That is actually Harry Reid’s and your position as I pointed out to you. Even Obama is quoted as saying that he “won”, therefore he rules I suppose. But now knowing that you do favor majority rule – voter ID laws are favored by 70% of the public. I am sure you will jump on board soon.

        However if I read that wrong, and you do respect minorities rights, then explain to us all why Harry Reid refuses to bring any GOP House legislation to the Senate floor, and refuses to consider GOP Senate amendments. I await your informed response.

      • watsonthethird May 20, 2014 / 1:17 pm

        However if I read that wrong, and you do respect minorities rights, then explain to us all why Harry Reid refuses to bring any GOP House legislation to the Senate floor, and refuses to consider GOP Senate amendments. I await your informed response.

        Yes, you read it wrong. But at least you read it.

      • Cluster May 20, 2014 / 1:54 pm

        So you do support minorities rights? But you then failed to explain the actions of your parties Senate leader. Any reason?

      • watsonthethird May 20, 2014 / 3:05 pm

        So you do support minorities rights?

        Correct. I do not think the majority of Americans have the right to infringe on the rights of other Americans, and neither did the Founders. The basic rights of individuals are protected through the Bill Of Rights. To me, one of the purposes of government is to protect those rights. I would have thought this to be a very conservative position, so I’m perplexed that so-called conservatives fail to acknowledge the importance of protecting individual rights. Instead, you come off as motivated by partisan politics. This is what conservatism as become in the twenty-first century.

        As for the tactics in the Senate, or the House for that matter, you’re not talking about rights. In the Senate and the House, laws are made by majority vote. If such laws violate the rights of ordinary Americans, then they should be struck down in court.

        That you cite this as a “gotcha” example is because you can’t bring yourself to agree with me that protection of individual rights, and the Bill Of Rights itself, is important. To admit that would mean you would have to agree with me. And you’d rather do pretty much anything than admit you agree with me, so you twist yourself into a pretzel trying to draw equivalence between disparate things.

      • Cluster May 20, 2014 / 7:21 pm

        I don’t even know what you’re talking about, but it’s not the first time. I fully support the first ten amendments which are the Bill of Rights and just a hint, they don’t include the right to vote. And I also have to challenge you a bit here – it seems as though progressives aren’t all that fond of the first and second amendment.

      • dbschmidt May 20, 2014 / 8:00 pm

        It takes no more than a Google search that by popular vote have enacted that marriage in that State is between one man and one women–yet you also see this overturned by activist Judges. So, according to your example 59% support until an actual vote is taken but we must still knuckle under to less (way less) than 10% of the population. Way to go. Majority, Minority and the actual voting population screwed in one pass.

    • watsonthethird May 18, 2014 / 8:12 pm

      The ACA is not popular, is ruining the economy…

      I already cited polling that shows that the majority of Americans do not want the ACA repealed. So can we count on you to oppose those calling for its repeal? You know, stand up for your principles and all? As for “ruining the economy,” is that a result of some poll you read or just your opinion?

      so what makes brain dead progressives like you think that only American solutions will resolve the issue

      Polling shows that the vast majority of Americans–Americans, Cluster–think the United States should take steps to prepare for global warming. That the vast majority of Americans support this is not an arguable point, so given your previously cited rationale that majority opinion rules, I’m truly surprised that you haven’t joined them in calling for action.

      Not even all gay people want gay marriage, I happen to know one.

      Wow. Cluster actually knows a gay person! Laugh out loud funny. Again, the majority of Americans support same sex marriage, Cluster.

      And the fact that Democrats are championing a minimum wage increase, is proof positive you have no idea what to do with the economy.

      No, Cluster. The majority of Americans–by a wide margin–favor raising the minimum wage.

      Again, why are you arguing with the majority of Americans? You just told us that doing what they want is the way to run the country.

      • Cluster May 18, 2014 / 8:24 pm

        You cited nothing, and if you had half a brain you would realize that your own jackass president has already essentially repealed the bill by unilaterally changing it beyond all recognition. Even at that, a majority still disproves.

        I am truly surprised you can tie your shoes in the morning. Americans care more about shutting people like you up than they do global warming. And again, if you had half a brain, you’d realize that a lot of steps have been taken. You are insufferably stupid.

        Sam sex marriage is already on the books idiot. Except the people in your state did vote it down, including a majority of blacks. Are they homophobes in your opinion?

        Raising the minimum wage will accomplish nothing, but I am sure you’re use to that. It’s really impressive though that you want to give people a $3 raise. I will remind people never to work for you.

        You’re a failure on every level.

      • Cluster May 18, 2014 / 8:39 pm

        And I forgot to mention the bang up job progressives are doing with foreign policy. Really impressive. Any more red lines in store?

      • Cluster May 18, 2014 / 8:51 pm

        Here’s just another example of how wrong and insufferably stupid progressives are. The following is from a progressive mental giant:

        KATRINA VANDEN HUEVEL: It’s an outrage. Those who are involved in these longer wait times must be held accountable, prosecuted to the full extent of the law. But I think we need to step back. Bob, Congress has cut funding, has slashed funding, for veterans’ benefits over these last years.

        Yet the data shows that the VA budget authority actually doubled.

        https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS22897.pdf

        This goes without saying that the VA IS government healthcare. But I won’t go in to that.

      • Cluster May 19, 2014 / 7:50 am

        I don’t even know if you can call it the ACA anymore. It has been unilaterally changed so much already that it doesn’t even resemble the original bill, so yes, I guess if we just keep changing it to the point that most provisions and regulations are cut out, then I would support that.

      • Cluster May 19, 2014 / 7:47 am

        Actions are being take to combat your over hyped, over emotional issue of global warming (which hasn’t warmed in the last 15 years). Did you not know that?

      • Cluster May 19, 2014 / 7:46 am

        There is same sex marriage in some states. Did you not know that?

      • M. Noonan May 19, 2014 / 12:36 am

        Depends on the poll – Rasmussen finds that 53% have an unfavorable view of the law, 43% have a favorable; of these, 40% have a very unfavorable, 20% a very favorable rating. Meanwhile, 56% figure that their health care costs will rise.

        This is why, of course, issue polls are not all that worthwhile – they might give you some talking points, but they aren’t the total reality. It all depends on how the questions are asked and in what sequence. Take your Global Warming Poll – if I were to insert into that poll the following question:

        If you knew that your personal energy bill would rise 25% because of shutting down coal plants to prevent global warming, would your favor or oppose such an action?

        I’ll bet that I’d get a massive majority opposed to it. The proof will be in the pudding – if, say, ObamaCare is now popular, then Democrats will start vigorously running on it and allow the voters to reward them in November for providing this wonderful, new thing. If, on the other hand, it is unpopular, then we’ll continue to see Democrats – especially those in tight contests in red States – running away from it. Check back with me in November and we’ll see how accurate your poll was.

      • watsonthethird May 19, 2014 / 11:59 am

        This is why, of course, issue polls are not all that worthwhile – they might give you some talking points, but they aren’t the total reality. It all depends on how the questions are asked and in what sequence.

        I don’t disagree. Which is one reason I think Cluster is misguided in complaining that Democrats shove things down the throats of Americans despite polling results. The other reason is that he is clearly being hypocritical. If this is his basis, then as I pointed out, a lot of other things needs to be fully enacted–things that you and he don’t support. He can’t have it both ways.

        There is also the concept of minority rights in a democracy ruled by the majority. Cluster’s first example of Democratic opposition to something supported by the majority is “sensible voter ID laws,” which, given the way in which it has been enacted in some states, is an example of the will of the majority trampling on the rights of others. This is why Wisconsin’s voter ID law was struck down a few weeks ago in federal court. The judged ruled that the law placed an undue burden on poor and minority voters, and wrote that “virtually no voter impersonation occurs in Wisconsin and it is exceedingly unlikely that voter impersonation will become a problem in Wisconsin in the foreseeable future.” The state could not present even one instance of voter ID fraud to the court.

      • Cluster May 19, 2014 / 12:37 pm

        Which is one reason I think Cluster is misguided in complaining that Democrats shove things down the throats of Americans despite polling results.

        Please explain the passage of the ACA to us all.

        There is also the concept of minority rights in a democracy ruled by the majority.

        Please explain Harry Reid’s nuclear option, and refusal to bring any House GOP legislation to the floor of the Senate.

        Cluster’s first example of Democratic opposition to something supported by the majority is “sensible voter ID laws,” which, given the way in which it has been enacted in some states, is an example of the will of the majority trampling on the rights of others.

        http://dailycaller.com/2013/11/13/voter-turnout-in-texas-nearly-doubles-under-new-id-law/

        So, voter ID laws have not hindered voting at all, in fact it has increased turnout in TX and GA to name a few. Even Democratic Secretary of State James Baker wrote in 2005:

        The electoral system cannot inspire public confidence if no safeguards exist to deter or detect fraud or to confirm the identity of voters. Photo IDs currently are needed to board a plane, enter federal buildings, and cash a check. Voting is equally important.

        Rational people support common sense voter ID laws. Which explains your objection.

        Any other issues you would like to bring up?

      • M. Noonan May 19, 2014 / 12:53 pm

        Watson,

        Uh, no – that was a judge making up absurd excuses for overturning the will of the people of Wisconsin. You need to get a better grasp of this.

        ObamaCare was never popular – never wanted. It took massive legislative trickery combined with outright bribes to get it passed. Once passed and coming into law, it took illegal actions by the President to keep it from entirely melting down. If it came up for a vote in Congress today for approval, it would be resoundingly defeated. Democrats are very likely to get clobbered this November because of it. This is what we mean by shoving laws down our throats – and your example of the Wisconsin voter ID law is what we mean by legislating from the bench.

  6. watsonthethird May 19, 2014 / 1:37 pm

    Rational people support common sense voter ID laws. Which explains your objection.

    Cluster, rational people see that the voter IDs laws that have recently been enacted have one purpose, which is the reduce the number of voters who are likely to vote for Democratic candidates. I mean, you don’t have to work hard to figure this out; Republicans and their supporters admit as much.

    • Amazona May 19, 2014 / 2:43 pm

      Watson has proved the adage that if someone is making a fool of himself, you shouldn’t try to stop him. His recent hemorrhage of Lefty silliness has given him ample opportunity to trip himself up, and of course he has.

      “Amazona is the one who implies only people who think like her are rational.” is quickly followed by “rational people see that the voter IDs laws that have recently been enacted have one purpose, which is the reduce the number of voters who are likely to vote for Democratic candidates. ”

      First he lies, though he kind of hedges that lie with the weasel word “implies” so he can always try to duck out of being accused of claiming I actually HAVE said such a thing. And then he explains that only people who agree with his bizarre claim about support for voter ID laws are rational.

      As annoying as watson’s bleatings are, there is the entertainment value to consider.

      This has been quite a barrage of watsonian garbage and hysteria, and most of it is just noise, but he did have a cute little list we can look at.

      Universal background checks on all gun sales.
      No repeal of the ACA, only fixes, if that.
      No chipping away at Roe v. Wade.
      Raise the minimum wage.
      Same sex marriage is the law of the land.

      What, exactly, is a “universal background check” and how is it different from the background checks done now and what gun sales are exempt from them?

      The Affordable Care Act is not affordable, and is not about care. It is also so deeply and profoundly flawed that it cannot be “fixed”. It was voted in by a handful of party hacks, none of whom had read it, supported by a litany of lies )”If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor”), written by radical Leftists and presented to a spineless and compliant partisan Congress for rubber-stamping, and is so rife with corruption, contradictions, hidden taxes, and general defects there is no reason to spend any time on it at all.

      Besides, as Cluster has pointed out, it has pretty much been repealed by the unconstitutional changes made to it by King President Obama that it is even less coherent than it was when it was voted in by this lapdog Congress, as it was written, and made law as it was written.

      Roe V Wade needs to be evaluated not as a pro-abortion matter but as a gross overreach of Supreme Court activism, as bad law because it violates state sovereignty. The braindead think it is about abortion. It is about the Constitutional right of states to control anything that is not a specifically delegated authority of the federal government.

      Yes, the pro-death crowd, which preaches that the value of one human life should be the decision of those who will benefit most by ending it—-the female gestator and the medical person doing the killing. Any effort to rein in this blatant conflict of interest is anathema to them, and seen as “chipping away” at the permission given by the government to do this very thing.

      As for raising the minimum wage, this has been dealt with so often, and so effectively, including by the use of examples of the many times doing so has had a severely negative effect on the overall economy as well as the low-income people it was supposed to help, even continuing to whine about it just proves the utter lack of seriousness underlying watson’s bleats.

      And yes, what could be more important than the hijacking of a WORD. Again, utter lack of seriousness…………

    • watsonthethird May 19, 2014 / 3:16 pm

      Amazona, it is obvious by your statement, “BTW, this person is lost to conservatism, because conservatism is based on rational thinking,” that you think anyone who thinks differently does so for irrational reasons. As for everything else, you really haven’t addressed the point I was making. Maybe you should read the entire thread. Oh, except for the fact that you and the other moderators have deleted comments.

    • 02casper May 19, 2014 / 4:19 pm

      “As for raising the minimum wage, this has been dealt with so often, and so effectively, including by the use of examples of the many times doing so has had a severely negative effect on the overall economy as well as the low-income people it was supposed to help, even continuing to whine about it just proves the utter lack of seriousness underlying watson’s bleats.”

      Except that’s not true. There is considerable research showing the positives of raising the minimum wage.

      http://www.raisetheminimumwage.com/pages/research

      • Cluster May 19, 2014 / 4:51 pm

        Aside from your dubious source, here’s what the CBO says:

        The increase in the minimum wage would have two principal effects on low-wage workers: The large majority would have higher wages and family income, but a much smaller group would be jobless and have much lower family income.

        So in reality, an increase in minimum wage is simply wealth transfer from one subset of low income workers to another. It is also just an admission that progressives have no larger vision for the economy, and what a sad statement that is.

        Also, having owned a C Store in my past, I can tell you from first hand experience that I paid more than the minimum wage, and what drove that was competition for good labor which is a concept completely lost on progressives, government workers, and tenured teachers.

        http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44995

  7. watsonthethird May 19, 2014 / 1:44 pm

    Uh, no – that was a judge making up absurd excuses for overturning the will of the people of Wisconsin. You need to get a better grasp of this.

    Okay, I’ll play along. What were the absurd excuses? How come the state could not identify even a single case of voter ID fraud? Which presumably would be the reason to enact such a law.

    And what about the Pennsylvania voter ID law, which was also struck down in court in January? I suppose that judge also just made up lame excuses out of thin air. I mean, laws that unreasonably hinder people from exercising their fundamental right to vote are so… conservative.

    Your problem is that any ruling you object to is “legislating from the bench,” while any ruling you agree with that invalidates law is a check on runaway government. Not too consistent there, Mark.

    • Amazona May 19, 2014 / 2:49 pm

      More nonsense from the wattle:

      “And what about the Pennsylvania voter ID law, which was also struck down in court in January? I suppose that judge also just made up lame excuses out of thin air. I mean, laws that unreasonably hinder people from exercising their fundamental right to vote are so… conservative.”

      I don’t know what excuses were made by this judge, but he really did say that protecting the sanctity of the vote by making sure that only eligible voters were voting was an “unreasonable” hinderance to a fundamental right to vote he is as stupid as you are.

      You do agree, do you not, that only citizens who are registered should be allowed to vote? You do agree, do you not, that these are reasonable requirements? Because it sounds like what you are really squealing about is that requiring a state-issued proof of identity will “hinder” those who are not eligible from voting.

      And BTW, we already knew that you are utterly clueless about the meaning of “conservative” so we didn’t need the reminder.

    • watsonthethird May 19, 2014 / 3:25 pm

      And isn’t this just typical of conservatives: Blame the judge when they don’t like a ruling, and call him “stupid.” Really, Little Amy, why don’t you expound upon the conservative philosophy when it comes to the judicial branch. It appears that such philosophy is that “judges that making rulings I agree with are constitutional; judges that making rulings I disagree with are unconstitutional.” But please, explain it yourself. Take all the time you need.

      As far as what the judge said in the Pennsylvania case, why don’t you read it yourself: http://www.pacourts.us/assets/files/setting-647/file-3490.pdf?cb=a5ec29. Then explain to use how what the judge said is so stupid. Again, we anxiously await your analysis.

      • Cluster May 19, 2014 / 4:20 pm

        What’s typical of progressives is to obfuscate the issues, so can you please first respond to the increase in voter turnout in TX, particularly in the Hispanic community, following their enactment of voter ID laws? Also, if it’s not asking too much to respond to James Baker’s comment, and Amazona’s question as to whether or not you think it is important that only registered voters vote.

        Is this asking too much?

      • 02casper May 19, 2014 / 4:44 pm

        “What’s typical of progressives is to obfuscate the issues, so can you please first respond to the increase in voter turnout in TX, particularly in the Hispanic community, following their enactment of voter ID laws?”

        The elections that were compared were two off year elections which only covered Constitutional amendments. 5.37% of Registered voters voted in 2011. 8.55% voted in 2013. Considering over 58% of Registered voted in the 2012 election one could just as easily conclude that the ID laws lowered the vote.

      • Cluster May 19, 2014 / 5:09 pm

        Casper, you are the King of obfuscation. What you’re saying is that a dramatic increase in voter turnout in off year, minor election issues will translate to a decrease in voter turnout in major elections. I am not sure where you came up with that logic, but again, you are one that thinks the Constitution is a racist, misogynist document, right?

        You of all people Casper should answer the question – “do you believe that only registered, “living” voters should be allowed to vote”?

        http://www.nationalreview.com/article/368234/voter-fraud-weve-got-proof-its-easy-john-fund

      • watsonthethird May 19, 2014 / 5:31 pm

        Is this asking too much?

        Yes, it is asking a bit much considering you pretty much dodge everything. But in regards to your question about TX, 60% more people voted in in 2013 than 2011. Do you think that perhaps there were other factors that may have contributed to such a substantial difference? I know that answering would require you to think out of the box–and to answer a question for a change–so I’m not holding my breathe. Rather, I’m sure you’ll just respond with a demand for me to answer yet another question.

        Regarding voter ID, the point the judges have made is that the courts have not been provided with any evidence that voter ID fraud exists, while they _have_ been given evidence that the rights of voters are being infringed.

        Of course only registered voters should be allowed to vote. These voter ID laws are not about that, as even you know. But let me turn it around and ask you, do believe in infringing on the rights of individual voters? If so, under what circumstances?

      • Cluster May 19, 2014 / 7:29 pm

        Kind of a “when did you stop beating your wife” question. Watson, you are as transparent as you are stupid, and you’re simply on the wrong side of history on this over hyped issue.

        http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/204761-opponents-of-voter-id-laws-see-time-to-fight-running-out

        I guess using your logic all welfare programs discriminate because they require photo ID too, right? And all federal buildings discriminate; all airlines discriminate, etc. a lot of discrimination going on – what’s an over emotional progressive to do?? Oh my.

        Maybe you should join forces with Carter, Clinton and Young and figure out one of many easy solutions for the small minority of people affected rather than bleating on incessantly about nothing.

      • 02casper May 19, 2014 / 6:30 pm

        “Casper, you are the King of obfuscation. What you’re saying is that a dramatic increase in voter turnout in off year, minor election issues will translate to a decrease in voter turnout in major elections.”

        What I’m saying is a single example of off year elections in one state really doesn’t prove anything. And the difference wasn’t that dramatic.

        “You of all people Casper should answer the question – “do you believe that only registered, “living” voters should be allowed to vote”?”

        I believe all registered voters should be allowed to vote. I also believe that people should be allowed to register up to the day of an election.

      • Cluster May 19, 2014 / 7:06 pm

        Examples from GA, TX, IL and AZ clearly demonstrate that voter ID does not suppress voter turnout, and in fact some examples are that it increases it. Voter ID would also not discourage late registration.

      • watsonthethird May 19, 2014 / 7:40 pm

        Kind of a “when did you stop beating your wife” question. Watson, you are as transparent as you are stupid, and you’re simply on the wrong side of history on this over hyped issue.

        We all knew you wouldn’t answer the question. Plus you engaged in more insults. The perfect Cluster response!

        I guess using your logic all welfare programs discriminate because they require photo ID too, right?

        It’s not the same, Cluster. We’re talking about a right, not a privilege, not a qualification for government assistance, not the purchase of an airline ticket. Do you even understand that there is a difference? The judges in the Wisconsin and Pennsylvania decisions were quite clear that the proposed laws had disproportionate effect on the rights of voters, and the states could not present any evidence that this should be weighed against fraud. Why don’t you read the cases and then get back to us.

      • Cluster May 19, 2014 / 8:27 pm

        The right to vote is granted to legal and eligible residents of the United States. How do you propose we measure that? The honor system?

        You’re on the wrong side of history Watson and simply being an obstructionist at this point. Instead of being part of the problem, how about being part of the solution?

      • Cluster May 19, 2014 / 8:33 pm

        And of course you missed the obvious when it comes to welfare. How is it that the people dependent on welfare, ie; the poor and disenfranchised, are capable of obtaining a photo ID but the “other” folks who are “poor and disenfranchised” and want to vote, find it to be an impossible barrier to over come?

        It doesn’t pass the smell test

      • Amazona May 19, 2014 / 7:40 pm

        Oh, I read it. And I found it full of references to “liberal access” and nothing about keeping that access limited to people who are legally qualified to vote. This is what you Libs do—–you zero in on one thing, such as the photo ID itself, and carry on for pages and pages and pages, such as this judge did, citing phone polls and estimates and surveys and so on, ad nauseum, are photo IDs hard to get, what is this process and what is that process, blah blah blah, without a single reference to the intent of the voter ID law, which is to ensure that only qualified people are voting. I call that stupid, though I am sure that you Identity Politics fans are so overcome with the vast number of legal citations and flood of words you find it quite intelligent.

        You also misstated what I said. What I said was (and there was a small typo, a missed “if”—)
        “(if) he really did say that protecting the sanctity of the vote by making sure that only eligible voters were voting was an “unreasonable” hinderance to a fundamental right to vote he is as stupid as you are.” Funny, you seem to be posturing as one who read and understood the ruling, yet you couldn’t even understand this short sentence. BTW, this judge did NOT “…say that protecting the sanctity of the vote by making sure that only eligible voters were voting was an “unreasonable” hinderance to a fundamental right to vote…” As a matter of fact, he never even considered the eligibility of the voters in question, fretting only about their “liberal access”.

        casper, of course, is also focused on a small nugget—-registration. He thinks anyone who is registered should be able to vote, and what’s more anyone who strolls up at the last minute ought to be able to register. With or without photo ID, casper? Or can a document easily created in Photoshop or any other similar program which shows his name and an address, any old address, on an alleged phone bill or other utility bill, without proof of whether this person asking to register is really the person on the bill, qualify in casper’s mind as a proven American citizen legally qualified to vote?

        Even I could, within a few minutes, scan in an electric bill or a phone bill, replace the name on it with any name I happened to choose, and have what would pass as acceptable proof of ID. Worse, this would also pass to register, and on the same day as the election preclude any investigation into the validity of the document.

        For all the bleating and squealing about protecting the right to vote, these Libs never even give lip service to protecting the validity of the vote. If I vote for a candidate and a fraudulent vote is cast for his opponent, my legal vote has been canceled out. This doesn’t seem to bother these Libs. Allowing people to vote numerous times doesn’t seem to bother them. Allowing dead people to vote doesn’t seem to bother them. Allowing foreigners who have not become citizens doesn’t seem to bother them. On the contrary, they howl with outrage at the very thought of protecting the integrity of the vote.

        One of, if not THE, most important rights of American citizens is the right to vote for their representation. This is rightfully restricted to American citizens who are not felons (at least in some states). The old laws understood the importance of this participation in the governing process, and there were protections in place. One had to register, in advance, so mailings could be sent to the stated address, providing some support to the claim of living there. Registrations were, or at least could be, vetted, to confirm the name and address of the registrant. People voted in the same place every election, so the election officers became familiar with those in the precinct, and absentee voting was allowed for legitimate reasons but limited. There were multiple checks and balances in place to provide as much assurance as possible to the American voter that his vote was protected.

        I have to look at these strident demands that all of these protections be removed, that voting be wide open, unsupervised, and unrestricted, with curiosity about why these people find this to be so important. All of the energy put into allowing people to vote with absolutely no confirmation of their eligibility or even identity could have been used to take the very very very small number of legitimate, qualified people who do not have proper IDs and help them get these documents. Let’s face it, not being able to identify yourself in this day and age is a liability. Having these documents would help these people in ways other than voting. Anyone sincerely concerned about these people would be helping them. But no, what we get is a lot of pious mouthings about protecting the unidentified, without doing a single thing to help them, but used to disguise the real agenda, which is to erode the validity of the American voting process.

      • Amazona May 19, 2014 / 7:50 pm

        Not many years ago I lived near a resort area which had many foreign workers. Because I speak Spanish I often volunteered to help workers navigate basic American tasks, such as getting drivers licenses. I would witness, and was told by many others, of the same process.

        The license would be granted for a specific length of time, depending on the length of the work visa. The official would carefully explain that this license would expire when the visa expired—-an explanation based upon the official’s careful examination of the applicant’s passport and immigration papers. And then, without fail, the official would ask the clearly identified foreign applicant if he or she would like to register to vote.

        When I saw this I would object, even after having had it explained to me several times by chagrined officials, that the law REQUIRED them to offer this to EVERYONE getting a driver’s license.

        Now we have Libs voting to grant driver’s licenses to foreigners who don’t even have proper immigration documentation. And, under the Motor Voter laws, every one of these foreigners has to be offered the ability to register to vote. So there are a few million illegal voters right there, and they even have picture IDs. Then add in those who can register at the time of voting, with no more identification than an alleged bill from a phone company, and then vote under whatever unverified name is on the document. Then add in those who can vote in the names of people who were registered and who are now dead. This doesn’t even address the impossibility of verifying the legitimacy of votes “found” in car trunks after the valid votes have been counted and the necessary number of new votes is known.

        Not one Lib has raised a voice to protect the legitimacy of the American vote. All the noise is about eroding it.

      • Amazona May 19, 2014 / 7:59 pm

        I have spent the last few months working on reports which involve scanning in documents, which are scanned in PDF form, and then converting them to editable form such as Word, so I can highlight them, annotate them, and/or comment on them, and sometimes correct things like misunderstood words in transcripts. So I have spent up to eight hours a day taking one document after another and making it possible for it to say something else. What I have done is quite simple and legitimate—-correcting “bare” to “bear” for example—-but I know that I can scan in any bill, convert it to Word, delete a name or an address and fill in another, within minutes.

        And THIS is what Libs want to consider legal identification, and the strongest protection they will tolerate for the protection of the American vote. That is disgusting enough, but then they double down on the disgusting nature of their agenda by piously hiding behind a claim of wanting to protect the rights of voters.

      • watsonthethird May 19, 2014 / 8:12 pm

        From the Wisconsin court ruling:

        The evidence at trial established that virtually no voter impersonation occurs in Wisconsin. The defendants could not point to a single instance of known voter impersonation occurring in Wisconsin at any time in the recent past. The only evidence even relating to voter impersonation that the defendants introduced was the testimony of Bruce Landgraf, an Assistant District Attorney in Milwaukee County. Landgraf testified that in “major elections,” by which he means gubernatorial and presidential elections, his office is asked to investigate about 10 or 12 cases in which a voter arrives at the polls and is told by the poll worker that he or she has already cast a ballot. Tr. 2056–57. However, his office determined that the vast majority of these cases—approximately 10 each election—have innocent explanations, such as a poll worker’s placing an indication that a person has voted next to the wrong name in the poll book. Tr. 2057. Still, about one or two cases each major election remain unexplained, and the defendants contend that these one or two cases could be instances of voter-impersonation fraud. I suppose that’s possible, but most likely these cases also have innocent explanations and the District Attorney’s office was simply unable to confirm that they did. Moreover, the most Landgraf’s testimony shows is that cases of potential voter-impersonation fraud occur so infrequently that no rational person familiar with the relevant facts could be concerned about them. There are over 660,000 eligible voters in Milwaukee County, and if the District Attorney’s office finds two unexplained cases each major election, that means that there is less than one questionable vote cast each major election per 330,000 eligible voters. The rate of potential voter-impersonation fraud is thus exceedingly tiny.

        Given the obstacles identified above, it is likely that a substantial number of the 300,000 plus voters who lack a qualifying ID will be deterred from voting. Although not every voter will face all of these obstacles, many voters will face some of them, particularly those who are low income. And the evidence at trial showed that even small obstacles will be enough to deter many individuals who lack an ID from voting. Professor Burden testified about the “calculus of voting,” which is “the dominant framework used by scholars to study voter turnout.” LULAC Ex. 811 at 811; Tr. 1278–83. Under this framework, even small increases in the costs of voting can deter a person from voting, since the benefits of voting are slight. Tr. 1279–80. As Burden explained:

        [The framework] suggests that voting is a low-cost, low-benefit activity and that very slight changes, marginal changes in the costs can have large effects on participation. So even small factors like weather or illness, day-to-day interruptions can deter a person from voting. Obviously administrative costs imposed by the state could be part of that as well.

        Tr. 1279–80; see also Tr. 1220–21 (Professor Levine also testified about the calculus of voting). Thus, for many voters who lack an ID, even minor burdens associated with obtaining one will be enough to deter them from voting. Cf. Crawford 472 F.3d at 951 (“[E]ven very slight costs in time or bother or out-of-pocket expense deter many people from voting, or at least from voting in elections they’re not much interested in.”). But in light of the evidence presented at trial, it is also clear that for many voters, especially those who are low income, the burdens associated with obtaining an ID will be anything but minor. Therefore, I conclude that Act 23 will deter a substantial number of eligible voters from casting a ballot.

        See, to Little Amy, preserving the right of low income people to vote is all about “liberal access.” At least you have finally fessed up to your true intention, Amy, which is to disenfranchise and abridge the rights of poor people.

      • Cluster May 19, 2014 / 8:42 pm

        From the Wisconsin court ruling:

        The evidence at trial established that virtually no voter impersonation occurs in Wisconsin. The defendants could not point to a single instance of known voter impersonation occurring in Wisconsin at any time in the recent past.

        Evidently the court has blinders on, because the following happened in NY. But I am sure this could never happen in WI. Never.

        http://www.nationalreview.com/article/368234/voter-fraud-weve-got-proof-its-easy-john-fund

      • M. Noonan May 20, 2014 / 2:21 am

        The Judge didn’t look very far:

        Prosecutors in Milwaukee County have charged ten people with voter fraud during the 2012 election, including two “double voters” and two felons who were ineligible to vote.

        Among the fraud cases is a woman accused of signing a recall petition against Gov. Scott Walker three times; and the petition circulator who collected those signatures, according to the Milwaukee-Wisconsin Journal Sentinel.

        This latest development comes just two days after a report in North Carolina of five people there being investigated for possible voter fraud, according to the CBS affiliate WNCT. They are suspected of being registered in both their state and in Florida.

        And the report out of Ohio of an Obama supporter accused of voting for him six times in the November election.

        Curiously, all of the charges surfacing are in battleground states. Although, some continue to insist that “large-scale voter fraud is virtually non-existent today,” as Forbes contributor John Wasik wrote in a piece on Nov. 6, 2012…

        Of course, there are relatively few cases of voter fraud – but the reason for this is that it is very hard to detect because there are few means of ensuring that any particular person presenting themselves to vote is eligible to be there. But we know that lots of fraud does, indeed, happen – we know this because when we try to purge dead and moved-away people from voter rolls, Democrats scream bloody murder. The only reason they’d do this is because they use those dead and moved-away registrations to stuff ballot boxes (you don’t have to prove your Fred Smith who died in 2007 – just show up, say you’re Fred Smith, and vote; now, if you had to have a photo ID showing that you are Fred Smith, then it would be massively more difficult).

      • watsonthethird May 19, 2014 / 9:01 pm

        Evidently the court has blinders on.

        So are you saying such evidence was presented in the Wisconsin court? Or just making stuff up again?

      • Amazona May 19, 2014 / 9:06 pm

        No, that’s not what he said.

        Let me guess—–now that you’re not even pretending to post ideas or facts, and just playing childish games, you are going to whimper if your posts are removed because you are not contributing anything. Oh, for a while you kind of did, if you consider providing a target for shooting down Progressive idiocy a contribution, but now you’re just playing “I know what you are but what am I, narny narny narny.”

        Which is, after all, not really any less inane that your “ideas”.

      • Amazona May 19, 2014 / 9:08 pm

        “….I can also produce investigative articles that show people (over 35,000) that have the same first, last names, identical SSN and DoB voting in two States during that election.”

        Sounds like the definition of “liberal access” to me. That PA judge would have peed down his leg in delight to be responsible for something like that in his state.

      • Amazona May 19, 2014 / 9:13 pm

        As it is impossible to prove a negative, I’m betting that no one proved there was no voter impersonation in Wisconsin.

        And without an identification process, how COULD you prove “impersonation”? In a state with sloppy standards, you don’t even need to impersonate some other Wisconsin voter. You can vote as Darth Vader with a wholly invented address on a forged utility bill presented at the polling place the day of the election. Who’s going to check? How are they going to check?

        Isn’t that the whole idea? To open up the voting booths to anyone, regardless of citizenship or other qualification? To open them up to multiple voting by the same people?

        After all, it’s cheaper and easier than buying votes with OPM.

      • Amazona May 20, 2014 / 10:15 am

        I finally took the time to wade through some of what I genteelly chose to refer to as “sludge” that I didn’t bother with yesterday, and my goodness what a gold mine of idiocy these Lib posts have provided!

        Let’s start with “teacher” casper’s analysis of voter data. He says: “The elections that were compared were two off year elections which only covered Constitutional amendments. 5.37% of Registered voters voted in 2011. 8.55% voted in 2013.”

        OK, so far he is doing fine. He is quoting facts from another source, and when he does this from a valid source he manages to stay out of the weeds. What point does he make? That two off year elections which only covered Constitutional amendments were compared, and the statistic that the off year election which only covered Constitutional amendments that was held after Texas voters were required to show photo ID had a higher turnout.

        But then he tries to think, poor silly thing, and here is where he gets so far in the weeds we can’t even see the top of his pointy little head. Because, in a desperate attempt to dispute the data, he then lurches over into another data source, one for GENERAL ELECTIONS. Because this is the only place he can find the numbers he so desperately needs. And here he finds that a larger percentage of registered voters voted in the general election than in the off-year elections which on, as he admitted, covered Constitutional amendments.

        Wow. What a find! More people are interested in, and motivated by, choosing their president than by studying and deciding on Constitutional amendments! OK, we’re not all that impressed by this breaking news, but it sure made an impression on cappy. Not only did it make an impression on him, it stirred him to cogitate, and this is what he came up with: “Considering over 58% of Registered voted in the 2012 election one could just as easily conclude that the ID laws lowered the vote.”

        Oh, my. I think this mathematical analysis should be sent to his school board. They really do need to keep him where his skills are appropriate—that is, helping kids lip synch to popular songs. Because he comes right out and admits that this conflation of two entirely different kinds of elections actually led him “easily conclude” that they should be considered to relate to each other.

        Oh, my.

      • Amazona May 20, 2014 / 10:33 am

        Now let’s take a look at the court ruling that made such an impression on the wattle that he had to copy and paste it for us. Just going over the first part, I have highlighted the points I find most significant. Read along with me, if you will. After each highlighted segment I will have my reaction to what it says.

        The evidence at trial established that virtually no voter impersonation occurs in Wisconsin.

        As I have pointed out, it is not possible to prove (or “establish”) a negative, so this first statement is a red flag indicating that we are entering an opinion zone unsupported by fact.

        The defendants could not point to a single instance of known voter impersonation occurring in Wisconsin at any time in the recent past.

        My first question is if voter impersonation of another voter was the only criterion established by or for the court. Without proper identification a voter could be voting under the name of someone in another state, or a wholly invented name, or a dead person who is not really very likely to come and complain his name has already been checked off. Narrowing the definition of voter fraud to impersonation of another Wisconsin voter is the first step toward a biased ruling. The second is how the judge defined “recent past”—-one year, five years, 20 years?

        The only evidence even relating to voter impersonation that the defendants introduced was the testimony of Bruce Landgraf, an Assistant District Attorney in Milwaukee County. Landgraf testified that in “major elections,” by which he means gubernatorial and presidential elections, his office is asked to investigate about 10 or 12 cases in which a voter arrives at the polls and is told by the poll worker that he or she has already cast a ballot. Tr. 2056–57.

        Setting aside the bias shown in the dismissive phrase “The only evidence even relating to voter impersonation” this Assistant District Attorney evidently did not keep records of complaints of voter impersonation, though this is a crime, and the court evidently just accepted his guess.

        However, his office determined that the vast majority of these cases—approximately 10 each election—have innocent explanations, such as a poll worker’s placing an indication that a person has voted next to the wrong name in the poll book. Tr. 2057.

        And just how is this established? Without a photo ID, how can a poll worker determine if he has made a mistake in checking off a “wrong name” or that a person wrongly identified himself? And “approximately”? Does this Assistant D.A. testify to “approximately” X number of murders or any other crime? Is “approximately” a legal standard in Wisconsin, or just in this courtroom?

        Still, about one or two cases each major election remain unexplained, and the defendants contend that these one or two cases could be instances of voter-impersonation fraud.

        Wow. So this is what passes as judicial ruling in Wisconsin. So this is what impresses Libs. A judge first waffles the data by using the highly technical legal term “about” and then dismisses even this by saying “…the defendants contend that these one or two cases could be instances of voter-impersonation fraud.” This ruling bends over backwards to dismiss the claims in the most condescending and subjective manner possible.

        “I suppose that’s possible, but most likely these cases also have innocent explanations and the District Attorney’s office was simply unable to confirm that they did.”

        I SUPPOSE THAT’S POSSIBLE

        MOST LIKELY THESE CASES ALSO HAVE INNOCENT EXPLANATIONS

        AND THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE WAS SIMPLY UNABLE TO CONFIRM THAT THEY DID

        That’s as far as I could make myself wade through this crap, this bizarre joke of a supposedly thoughtful legal ruling.

        This judge’s bias does not ooze out of this ruling, it sprays out in all directions. I hope they elect judges in Wisconsin, because this dog’s dinner of a political agenda barely even disguised as an objective analysis of fact and law ought to get this clown kicked off the bench.

        But I can see why the wattle would swoon over it.

      • meursault1942 May 20, 2014 / 11:05 am

        “Oh, I read it. And I found it full of references to “liberal access” and nothing about keeping that access limited to people who are legally qualified to vote.”

        You probably didn’t find anything about BENGHAZIIIIIIIIII!!!!!1111! either–that judge must’ve been in on it!

        But what you did find was a simple assessment of facts–facts that for all your screeching, wailing, screaming, gnashing of teeth, and stamping of feet, you have been unable to avoid:

        1) Voter fraud is a false problem, one whipped up by conservatives in part to explain the ass-kicking they absorbed in 2012 (when they had put so much effort into unskewing the polls and everything!) and in part to justify their efforts to prevent so many of those people from voting, lest conservatives have to endure another electoral ass-kicking.

        2) Even if the problem of voter fraud existed–and it doesn’t–the proposed voter ID law wouldn’t even address that problem. So you combat a lie with another lie. A fake solution to a fake problem: Conservatism!

        PS: This exact same thing–conservatives whining about “voter fraud,” being unable to find any, and having their voter suppression laws struck down–has happened in several other states. Iowa was the most recent, as Republicans even wasted taxpayer money to come up with the obvious–and embarrassing–conclusion:

        Nearly two years and $250,000 later, Schultz said that 238 total cases of suspected election misconduct were investigated. Investigators “found evidence of election misconduct in 117 cases that cancelled out the votes of legitimate Iowa voters,” he notes, and 17 more cases are still being investigated. One of those cases resulted in a not-guilty verdict and four cases were dismissed. Combined, that means at most 134 instances of fraudulent voting were found in Iowa over several elections, compared with 1,589,951 votes cast in the 2012 general elections alone. That means, at most, the investigation found a 0.008427933% rate of voter fraud.

        There was not a single identified case of impersonation fraud at the polls — people showing up and pretending to be another voter — meaning that Schultz’s own investigation found no cases at all that would have been prevented with his proposed voter identification law.

        My challenge still stands: Find a conservative position that isn’t based on a lie. So far, nobody’s been able to do so. Maybe one of can step up? If you’re not afraid of reality, that is (though I’m pretty sure you are).

      • Cluster May 20, 2014 / 11:42 am

        1) Voter fraud is a false problem, one whipped up by conservatives in part to explain the ass-kicking they absorbed in 2012

        There are Voter Fraud Convictions and Prosecutions in 46 States?
        http://www.truethevote.org/news/did-you-know-there-are-voter-fraud-convictions-and-prosecutions-in-46-states

        Mersault, you seem especially angry today. Is it because you are in the minority of even your own party of people who support voter ID laws? Is it because your ideology believes that we only have 500 days to save the world from climate chaos? Or is it simply because you’re an angry white man who realizes your party, your ideology, and your policies are complete failures on every level?

      • watsonthethird May 20, 2014 / 11:56 am

        This judge’s bias does not ooze out of this ruling, it sprays out in all directions. I hope they elect judges in Wisconsin, because this dog’s dinner of a political agenda barely even disguised as an objective analysis of fact and law ought to get this clown kicked off the bench.

        Gotta say you provided the comic relief for the morning, Little Amy… Re-litigating the Wisconsin voter ID case based on the two quotes I provided from the judge’s 90-page decision. The Great and Powerful Little Amy is just the smartest person on the planet. She is smarter than every judge — well, every judge she disagrees with. She is smart that she is immediately able to pick holes in rulings she doesn’t like without even reading the ruling. She doesn’t even need to be in the court room to hear the evidence presented at trial! Because she already knows the correct ruling before the case is even presented! Why have courts at all in Amy-World? Let’s just appoint Amy Oz the great and powerful.

        Your stated philosophy is just a facade you’ve constructed to hide behind. It is obvious that you have no respect for the judicial process, as you have demonstrated time after time. In fact, you evidently don’t even understand what the judicial process entails, probably because you believe you are the only one who knows the real, secret purpose of the Supreme Court. You claim to believe in limited government, but as a “philosophy,” your belief only extends to the federal branch. According to you, and as you have demonstrated on this blog in the past, all other branches of government can “do what they want,” as you once put it.

        You really should write a book.

      • Cluster May 20, 2014 / 12:09 pm

        Watson,

        I am assuming that you are fine with the Citizens United case since we obviously now know how highly you regard decisions by judges and the judicial process. In addition to that, tell us all how supportive you are of the recent TX abortion ruling. And knowing what respect you have for the judicial process, I am sure you have no problem with the special committee on Benghazi, right? I mean adjudicating issues is what this country is all about.

        Right?

      • watsonthethird May 20, 2014 / 11:59 am

        Cluster: Evidently the court has blinders on, because the following happened in NY.

        Cluster, do you even understand that we’re talking about a case involving Wisconsin’s voter ID law? I realize that you don’t actually read what’s in front of your face, but don’t embarrass yourself.

      • Cluster May 20, 2014 / 12:12 pm

        Tell us how that could never happen in WI. You have positioned yourself as an expert on voter ID, so I presented a NY example, and now want to hear from the expert how that could never happen in WI. I anxiously await your informed response.

      • watsonthethird May 20, 2014 / 12:18 pm

        Mark said:

        The Judge didn’t look very far.

        Do you understand how a court proceeding works, Mark? Two sides present their cases. In this trial, one side was the State of Wisconsin. Are you telling me that the lawyers for the State of Wisconsin, representing ballyhooed up-and-coming presidential candidate, Governor Scott Walker, were so inept that they failed to present evidence that Mark Edward Noonan was able to find in just a few minutes of surfing the Internet? If that’s really true, then obviously Gov. Walker is incapable of appointing competent staff and has no business getting anywhere near the White House, let alone the Wisconsin state capital.

      • M. Noonan May 20, 2014 / 12:48 pm

        No, the judge, as I said, was just making stuff up in order to justify his decision against the law. You really haven’t grasped the whole concept of legislating from the bench, have you? Its not a matter of law and precedent, but a judge just doing what he wants.

      • Cluster May 20, 2014 / 12:53 pm

        You really haven’t grasped the whole concept of legislating from the bench

        There is a whole litany of things Watson hasn’t grasped yet. This is just one of many.

      • watsonthethird May 20, 2014 / 12:25 pm

        You have positioned yourself as an expert on voter ID, so I presented a NY example, and now want to hear from the expert how that could never happen in WI.

        No, I haven’t positioned myself as an expert on voter ID, but I can see why I might appear to be an expert to you.

      • Cluster May 20, 2014 / 12:28 pm

        Well you certainly believe that your opinion on the matter trumps the opinions of 70% of the public, so how am I to read that?

        And you too Watson seem more angry today than usual. What’s the problem? Is your new sewer of a blog not delivering the stimulating debate you seek?

      • watsonthethird May 20, 2014 / 12:40 pm

        Well you certainly believe that your opinion on the matter trumps the opinions of 70% of the public, so how am I to read that?

        That’s not it, Cluster. But you had better have a compelling reason to trample the rights of individuals, and fear of nonexistent voter ID fraud is not a compelling reason. Honestly, I thought conservatives would first and foremost honor the rights of individuals, but this thread makes it clear that conservatives are governed more by fear than by respect for rights.

        And you too Watson seem more angry today than usual. What’s the problem? Is your new sewer of a blog not delivering the stimulating debate you seek?

        Not at all. You guys provided me with a lot of comic relief this morning.

      • Cluster May 20, 2014 / 12:50 pm

        Voter ID laws are proven to strengthen the integrity of legal votes by American citizens, to protect against the abuses recently found in NY and 46 other states, and to actually increase turnout. A cause championed by 55% of Democrats including Clinton, Carter and former SecState James Baker, and a cause of which I know you will get on board with eventually. We will all just to have to wait until you stop hyper ventilating.

      • watsonthethird May 20, 2014 / 1:25 pm

        A cause championed by 55% of Democrats including Clinton, Carter and former SecState James Baker, and a cause of which I know you will get on board with eventually.

        Cluster, a sensible voter ID requirement would not place an undue burden on segments of society asserting their rights. That is why these laws get struck down in court. In your zeal to get these laws in place, you fail to even acknowledge that. If you read the Wisconsin case, for example — and I know this is asking a lot of you — you would see that that is ultimately the basis in which the law was struck down. Anyway, you don’t read anything outside of Townhall, B4V, and the blog that can’t be named but can be found by clicking on my name above this comment, so there isn’t much point in pursuing this further with you.

      • Cluster May 20, 2014 / 1:53 pm

        Good to know that you consider $15 an “undue burden” but are ok with raising my healthcare premium over $3,000. In fact, using your “undue burden” logic, shouldn’t the ACA be struck down?

        And thank you for not pursuing this anymore. You’ve become the annoying, uninvited insect at an otherwise pleasant gathering.

      • Amazona May 20, 2014 / 5:56 pm

        “you had better have a compelling reason to trample the rights of individuals, and fear of nonexistent voter ID fraud is not a compelling reason.”

        Well, so far you have produced NO compelling evidence that the “rights of individuals” have been trampled, and the bizarre claim that voter fraud is nonexistent is such a blatant lie even you should feel a little shame at dragging it out.

        “Honestly”

        From you, this word is a hoot. Especially following so hard on the heels of the dishones sentence you started with.

        “… I thought conservatives would first and foremost honor the rights of individuals..”

        …which is as close as I have ever seen you get to a fact, even though you say it with a sneer in an effort to prove it false. Yes, conservatives do honor the rights of individuals, in ways despised by your kind, including the right to have the same laws apply to all people and the right to have their votes protected from theft or fraud. What is so funny about your arguments is that they are cloaked in the claim of fighting for the rights of individuals while they really mask the desire and intent to deprive most individuals of the right to have confidence that their votes will be counted, and that the process is honest.

        “….but this thread makes it clear that conservatives are governed more by fear than by respect for rights.”

        …except that what this thread REALLY makes clear is that Liberals are fiercely, ferociously, intent on subverting the voting process to protect the ability to manipulate it, strip individuals of confidence in the process and the sanctity of their votes, and make the entire process one of anarchy and lack of boundaries.

        “You guys provided me with a lot of comic relief this morning.”

        Yes, I thought I heard a high-pitched titter emanating from the blogosphere as you entertained yourself by making outrageous claims, repeatedly lying, and just having a high old time illustrating why the Left is destroying itself. Thanks for pointing out just what it is that you find so amusing. What you people don’t understand is that you got the votes you needed to get where you are, politically, by hiding this vile and dishonest nature and pretending to be decent human beings motivated by generosity, a passion for “fairness” and other platitudes. You think the votes were a mandate for your particular form of viciousness and intolerance and hatred and lie-spewing, but the truth is that you got those votes by hiding those true natures. And now that you are having so much fun flaunting the characteristics you had to hide to get votes, it is our turn to be amused as we see decent people turn against you.

      • Cluster May 20, 2014 / 7:28 pm

        ……but the truth is that you got those votes by hiding those true natures. And now that you are having so much fun flaunting the characteristics you had to hide to get votes, it is our turn to be amused as we see decent people turn against you.

        That is an excellent summation.

    • Amazona May 19, 2014 / 8:07 pm

      “Your problem is that any ruling you object to is “legislating from the bench,” while any ruling you agree with that invalidates law is a check on runaway government.”

      Ah, yes, that tired old whine again. It was stupid the first time it was tried, and it is pretty worn out by now. It is only used by the seriously ignorant, the purposely deceitful, and the Lib who simply doesn’t know enough about the Constitution to know when it has been rewritten by an activist court/judge—–and doesn’t care.

      It is an argument of last resort, what someone like the wattle falls back on when he knows he hasn’t got a fact to present.

      It is as tiresome as his sneering and then whimpering about big meanies being all mean to him. Hey, when someone flaunts his stupidity, it is not an insult to notice. When someone is as intent on showcasing his stupidity as watson is, it would be an insult to fail to notice.

      He’s like the doofus with the four-inch green Mohawk and multiple piercings who then whines because “people are looking at me”. Duh. If wattle didn’t want people to think he is stupid, he wouldn’t keep barging in to blogs like this and providing example after example after example.

      • watsonthethird May 19, 2014 / 8:20 pm

        Ah, yes, that tired old whine again.

        Because it’s true. It’s precisely what you do over and over. Despite your protestations, it turns out that this is your true political philosophy.

        As for all of the insults you hurled my way in your previous comment, such childish behavior demonstrates that even in old age, some people never grow up.

      • Amazona May 19, 2014 / 9:03 pm

        Thanks for admitting that you don’t even know what “legislating from the bench” means in the real world, you don’t know the true purpose of the Supreme Court, you don’t know the Constitution well enough to even know when it is altered by activist political appointees, and you don’t care.

        All you did was whimper “it’s true” without even a hint of proof, wallow in more of your mindless bigotry, and prove me right.

      • Amazona May 19, 2014 / 9:17 pm

        Ha! The wattle is now preaching about “political philosophy”. That’s like Rosie preaching about civility, or Bill Clinton about marital fidelity.

        wattle has no political philosophy, at least none that he will admit to or can define, much less defend. Naturally, he can’t define ours, either, and has to just claim that anything he doesn’t like, whether it exists or not, is really part of a “political philosophy”. About what you would expect from someone who has no idea of what “politics” means anyway, thinking it’s just emoting about some issue or another or smearing other people.

      • watsonthethird May 19, 2014 / 10:09 pm

        Preaching? Nah. Just pointing out how weak your so-called philosophy really is. I didn’t bring up the Supreme Court, but if you want to explain to us the “real” purpose of the court, then knock yourself out. And as for “legislating from bench,” Mark Noonan in this very thread already explained what it is.

        Meanwhile, a 92-year old woman struggles to comply with the new Texas voter ID law. Well, she should take comfort in the fact that “McLennan County elections administrator Kathy Van Wolfe said no one will be denied a vote, but if they don’t have a photo ID, they will be required to return within six days of voting with a valid ID or the ballot isn’t counted.” See? Just let them pretend to vote.

        Cluster and Little Amy react with glee as another “liberal” voter is denied her rights.

      • M. Noonan May 20, 2014 / 1:20 am

        Watson,

        Life isn’t perfect – but ensuring that 99.99999% of the votes are valid is worth causing a 92 year old woman a trivial difficulty.

      • Cluster May 20, 2014 / 8:04 am

        We “act with glee”?? Now do you know that? How do you know she’s a “liberal voter”?

        I am guessing though that since you are so concerned with this woman’s right to vote, that you will loan her the $15 required to get proper ID. What do you say Watson? Surely her right to vote means more to you than $15, right?

      • Amazona May 20, 2014 / 9:29 am

        And here is the wattle again, spewing what the voices in his head tell him——that we are reacting “with glee” and that this woman has been denied her right to vote. As you said, Cluster, he could always put his money where his vastly oversized mouth is and chip in to help this poor woman. “Barber could purchase a birth certificate online through the Tennessee Health Department’s website for $15 plus a processing fee, but said she doesn’t have anyone to help her We all know the wattle has online access—how else could he stalk conservative blogs to hurl his snot nuggets and then scurry off to Liberal blogs, his own included, to unload even more of his venom? And what’s a few bucks if it will save just one vote? It wouldn’t be OPM, which would take a lot of the pleasure out of it, but still……….

        Do you think he missed that part of the article he linked?

        But wait—-she doesn’t NEED the kindness of strangers, at least none as strange as wattle. The mean old Texas Department of Public Safety is stepping up, and you know what? It said so right in the article. “…the department has been in contact with Barber and is working to resolve her unusual circumstances.” How ’bout them apples? Not just squealing about a problem that already has a solution, but actually DOING something about it!

        No wonder that skipped right across the septic pond of wattle’s consciousness.

      • Cluster May 20, 2014 / 9:38 am

        No wonder that skipped right across the septic pond of wattle’s consciousness.

        LOL!!! A vast leach field indeed.

      • Amazona May 20, 2014 / 9:40 am

        “… pointing out how weak your so-called philosophy really is…”

        OK, once again,here is my political philosophy.

        It is that the United States of America not only should but must be governed according to the law of the land, the Constitution of the United States, as it is written. That the federal government was always meant to be severely restricted as to size, scope and power, with the vast amount of authority remaining with the States, or with the People. That the federal government is, therefore, restricted to only those duties delegated to it within the document, and that if something is not delegated to the federal government, nor prohibited to it, it is by the very words of the Constitution the responsibility of the States, or of the People.

        Please address and point out the weakness of this philosophy, which by the way is not “so-called” but coherent and concise.

        Or, if you don’t feel up to that, define your own political philosophy.

        Later, if you find the backbone or the integrity or the brain cells to do this, we can chat about our defenses for our philosophies.

        In the meantime, you might appear marginally less idiotic if you would stop inventing emotions and then pretending that they are part of a “political philosophy”. Just because whatever you consider your political philosophy is nothing more than a ridiculous mishmash of emotions ranging from hate to bigotry to righteous indignation doesn’t mean that others are equally befuddled and enslaved to feelings.

      • Amazona May 20, 2014 / 9:45 am

        “…A vast leach field indeed…”

        Well, it certainly needs some serious aeration, to break down that, uh, umm, ‘sludge’. We try here to provide the oxygen necessary for the process, but this ‘sludge’ is apparently too thick and solid to allow anything through.

        And ‘sludge’ that remains sealed off from light and air will never break down, and will remain as odious and foul as it was when it was emitted.

      • Amazona May 20, 2014 / 9:52 am

        “How do you know she’s a “liberal voter”? ”

        Good point, Cluster. A 92-year-old woman in Texas is hardly likely to be a Liberal. She grew up in an era where people understood and believed in the Constitution, before Progressives got their paws on the educational system and started turning out people who not only have no clue about the founding of this country, its foundational documents, its original philosophy of government BY the people, or its history of success when these principles were followed, they are also convinced that hating is the same as thinking, and tend to be somewhat hostile to their own nation. No one of her age is likely to share these distorted concepts.

        I’m sure the Texas Department of Public Safety is well aware of this, and acted on principle and the belief that the law is the law. No wonder this is so alien to the wattles, who revere the president who simply legislates from the Oval Office, declaring which laws shall be ignored and which should be followed, with the unspoken understanding that he might come back at any time and put those on the “ignore” list as well.

      • Amazona May 20, 2014 / 10:01 am

        “…as for “legislating from bench,” Mark Noonan in this very thread already explained what it is.”

        Well, Mark Noonan never defined it in such a bizarre and blatantly false way as you did, in your typical Lefty whine that “…the conservative philosophy when it comes to the judicial branch. It appears that such philosophy is that “judges that making rulings I agree with are constitutional; judges that making rulings I disagree with are unconstitutional.”

        When I asked you to define legislating from the bench, all you could do was duck and dodge and point to something someone else said.

        So man up here, and tell us one single ruling which you believe is judicial activism from the conservative, or Constitutional, side, and why it is a manipulation of the law and not a ruling based on the law. Explain it yourself. Take all the time you need.

      • watsonthethird May 20, 2014 / 11:38 am

        How do you know she’s a “liberal voter”?

        Because I read the article, Cluster.

        Barber wants the election certificate in order to vote for the next governor of Texas and for the next president.

        “I want to see a Democrat win,” she said. “My daddy was a Democrat to the end of his life . . . and he said, ‘Don’t none of you kids ever vote for a Republican.’ And I never have.”

      • Cluster May 20, 2014 / 11:43 am

        Well then be the better man and cough up the $15.

      • tiredoflibbs May 20, 2014 / 12:02 pm

        Ol’ Watty thinks that the “liberals” of today are the same as the liberals from Barbara’s father’s time! There is no comparison to the “liberals” of today than to the liberals of that time. Liberals were for smaller government, lower taxes and more freedom. That is not what the “liberals” of today want. Progressives are now just coming out of the “liberal” closet. They think that it is safe and they will be more accepted than before. They may have been the case when obame first became pResident. But people are now wising up to the outrageous agenda. Progressives have stolen the word “liberal” to describe themselves when “progressive” fell out with the American people. They took on the name “progressive” when “socialist” fell out with the American people.

        But expecting watty to pony up $15 of HIS OWN MONEY is foolish. We know that proggies are only comfortable in giving away money when it is not their own.

      • watsonthethird May 20, 2014 / 12:33 pm

        Life isn’t perfect – but ensuring that 99.99999% of the votes are valid is worth causing a 92 year old woman a trivial difficulty.

        I love the way Mark Noonan is so cavalier in infringing on this woman’s right to vote. And why is Mark perfectly willing to take away her rights? Because he thinks there might be voter ID fraud lurking out there somewhere, even if no one seems able to prove it in court.

        That’s a helluva conservative position there, Mark.

      • M. Noonan May 20, 2014 / 12:47 pm

        Because we can’t have perfection – but if refusing to demand identification means that a million false ballots will get in while demanding identification will prevent one valid vote from being cast, we’re way ahead of the game.

      • Cluster May 20, 2014 / 12:52 pm

        What???? You haven’t given this woman $15 yet???? Are you not concerned about her rights???

        What a heartless, and cheap progressive you are!

      • watsonthethird May 20, 2014 / 1:15 pm

        Because we can’t have perfection – but if refusing to demand identification means that a million false ballots will get in while demanding identification will prevent one valid vote from being cast, we’re way ahead of the game.

        Is this really your position, Mark? You’re afraid of a million false ballots getting in because of voter ID fraud?

        No, the state needs to present a compelling case for why it should be allowed to infringe on the rights of individuals. I could see a million cases of voter ID fraud constituting compelling evidence. But there is no such thing. Again, you base restricting individual rights on fear.

        As for legislating from the bench, in the Wisconsin voter ID case, which is the one we have predominately discussing, the State of Wisconsin failed to present any evidence of voter ID fraud, let alone a million cases. Conversely, ample evidence was presented showing that the law places a disproportionate burden on the rights of certain socio-economic classes of Wisconsin. Given the evidence, not only did the judge make the right decision, he made the conservative decision.

        In my opinion, the reason you compromise your conservative beliefs with respect to laws such as this, is that you are afraid you might lose future elections. Which is precisely why conservative legislators have been enacting this kinds of laws in recent years.

      • M. Noonan May 20, 2014 / 1:45 pm

        Watson,

        My guess is that in a Presidential cycle, the number of fraudulent votes gets into the millions. Of course, there is no proof because (a) no one investigates it and (b) various quasi-legal hurdles have to be breached to even try and investigate it. I became aware of this back during the fracas over the 2000 election…reviewing things precinct by precinct in Florida I found a good number of precincts which had 99% turnout and 99% of their votes going to one candidate. This is impossible – there’s just no way that can happen. The chances of such a thing happening even once in an election are probably trillions to one against, just in figuring how many people died or moved away since the last election cycle, and the fact that people just don’t vote 99% one way, ever. Seeing it happen a score of times in just one state raises the odds against to astronomical heights. It was clear that these were made up figures – later I found that vast numbers of precincts in the United States only have representatives of one party on site during the election…meaning they can do what they want.

        Coupling this with historical knowledge – Democrats have routinely practiced ballot-box stuffing for ages – I came to the conclusion that voter fraud is prevalent and in a close election can swing it against the actual will of the people. My solutions to this were voter ID and a requirement that each precinct have a judge from each party contesting the election. This way we can ensure that hanky panky is kept to a bare minimum…and, as I said, if one woman is inconvenienced, then so be it. At all events, I’m sure her story is made up – that your side produced this lady in order to pretend to have a case against voter ID but that in reality she could easily get an ID with just a small bit of effort.

      • Amazona May 20, 2014 / 5:09 pm

        “No, the state needs to present a compelling case for why it should be allowed to infringe on the rights of individuals.”

        No, you people have to prove two things. One is that the requirement for a photo ID to vote is an infringement on a right, and the other is that the right of one person to be able to vote without proving who he is overrides the right of another to have his identity and vote protected.

        So far you have done neither—-and the “you” is plural. You come up with some stories of an individual here and an individual there who claims to feel slighted or infringed upon, but when these cases are examined it always comes out that one single Lib could, with a few hours (or many less than that) of time and a few dollars could not only solve the “voting problem” but add to this person’s overall quality of life by making sure that he or she has the kind of identification that the rest of us have.

        This is where the hypocrisy is so blatant. For all the bitching and moaning about an alleged problem here, an alleged restriction there, it is obvious that for far less money and effort than go into the efforts to erode or destroy the integrity of the vote in the United States, every single person who needs an ID could get one. I don’t see any of you who mouth these pious platitudes turning off your computers and getting out there to reach out to these people and solve their problems.

        No, it’s just like the alleged “health care CRISIS !!!!!”. A few people have what the Left manages to identify as a problem and their “solution” is to destroy what does work to implement something that not only does not address any real problem that might exist, it actually creates more and far more disastrous problems with the so-called “fix”.

        You want equality? Bring them up to equality, don’t just eliminate the standard.

      • Amazona May 20, 2014 / 5:24 pm

        “the State of Wisconsin failed to present any evidence of voter ID fraud,”

        And yet another lie. No, the ruling in Wisconsin first narrowed the scope to “voter IMPERSONATION” and then dismissed what was produced within this very narrow scope with vague comments that prove the bias of the judge, who said things like “..I suppose that’s possible, but most likely these cases also have innocent explanations and the District Attorney’s office was simply unable to confirm that they did..”

        And then three lies in one short post:

        (1.) “I love the way Mark Noonan is so cavalier in infringing on this woman’s right to vote.
        (2.) Mark (is) perfectly willing to take away her rights
        (3.) Because he thinks there might be voter ID fraud lurking out there somewhere, even if no one seems able to prove it in court.

        Well, Mark is not only not “cavalier” about anything, there is no proof or even indication that this woman’s right to vote has been infringed upon. With the power and authority of the Texas Department of Public Safety stepping in to help this woman get her proper identification, it is obvious that she is going to retain her right to vote—-and furthermore, to vote in a state that PROTECTS that right by doing whatever it can to make sure than no one steals that vote from her.

        To say that Mark is “perfectly willing to take away her rights” is a vile and vicious libel.

        “….even if no one seems able to prove it (voter fraud) in court” —-except that it HAS been proven in court, time after time, in state after state.

        Like the RRL at the top of the radical Left food chain, there is no longer even an effort to tell lies that might pass as true. Now all that matters is yelling the words, even knowing that they are not only lies but blatant obvious lies disproved over and over again.

      • Amazona May 20, 2014 / 5:29 pm

        Well, gee, thanks for clearing that up. Knowing that she is a Liberal explains why she thinks the rules should not apply to her, and why she just whines that she COULD solve the problem but “no one will help her”….in spite of the fact that the State of Texas IS helping her. We have victimhood, lying and a sense of entitlement all wrapped up in one 92-year-old package. (Just curious—have you bigots attacked her because of HER age?)

        That little nugget of information clears up a lot of questions about the story, including how it managed to get dragged into the “news”.

      • 02casper May 20, 2014 / 6:00 pm

        “Cluster Post authorMay 20, 2014 at 11:43 am

        Well then be the better man and cough up the $15.”

        I just did. I sent $15 care of the Wacotrib newspaper to Ruby Barber, for her ID.

      • watsonthethird May 20, 2014 / 6:54 pm

        No, you people have to prove two things. One is that the requirement for a photo ID to vote is an infringement on a right, and the other is that the right of one person to be able to vote without proving who he is overrides the right of another to have his identity and vote protected.

        And the plaintiffs in the Wisconsin case did prove those things. Hence, the resulting decision. You just tie yourself up in knots about it because in Amy-World the only good judges are the ones that agree with Amy. Why have courts and judges at all?

        To say that Mark is “perfectly willing to take away her rights” is a vile and vicious libel.

        It’s not vile or libel at all. He has already said as much. And if voter ID fraud is so rampant that millions(

      • watsonthethird May 20, 2014 / 7:02 pm

        If vote ID fraud is so rampant that millions(!) of occurrences are happening every election, then why was the State of Wisconsin unable to present any examples? Is Scott Walker’s administration that incompetent? If so, we really don’t want him anywhere near the White House, as I’m sure you’ll agree.

        You guys simultaneously argue that “liberals” are stupid and brain dead, and yet capable of pulling off some of the greatest frauds ever perpetrated on the American public, with nary a trace of evidence left behind. You’re making yourself out to be a laughingstock.

        And then you have the gall to derisively dismiss this 92-year old woman in Texas simply because she has been a life-long Democratic voter. That is truly vile.

  8. meursault1942 May 20, 2014 / 11:12 am

    “You cherry picked one of his comments on the blog that can’t be named here, but can be found by clicking on my name above this comment, and then ascribed all sorts of ideologies to him.”

    Well, He can’t really argue against what I said–hell, he’s exemplifying it in this very thread, although Amazona is showcasing even more of the anger, fear, and paranoia that defines modern conservatives–he’s just angry that I said it. He’s afraid to actually debate about it, obviously (he won’t leave this protective bubble again!), so the best he can do is the classic Amazona tactic of goring a straw man. It’s all they’ve got left at this point

    • Cluster May 20, 2014 / 11:56 am

      Straw man?? I posted your actual words, and then factually pointed out the current rhetoric of your believed ideology. If you object to this, then I suggest you refrain from saying patently stupid things.

      • meursault1942 May 20, 2014 / 10:33 pm

        As long as there was something like a discussion you could stay but just posting insults without offering any ideas is what always gets you kicked off. // Moderator

      • Cluster May 20, 2014 / 10:51 pm

        And you’re the one that just chastised Amazona for reading comprehension? You shouldn’t chide anyone for something that you yourself are guilty of in the previous post. I never claimed that you “said” those things. I said that you are “fully invested in an ideology” that subscribes to those beliefs. And you are fully invested in progressive group think. I have read enough of your posts to state that as fact. That being said, I completely dismiss you as a thinking person.

      • meursault1942 May 21, 2014 / 12:33 am

        As long as there was something like a discussion you could stay but just posting insults without offering any ideas is what always gets you kicked off. // Moderator

      • Cluster May 21, 2014 / 6:28 am

        Well first of all, your acknowledgement that I was right is noted. Secondly, I don’t run to any one to defend me. In fact you may want to consider that the other blog you write at has had open discussions about who, and who may not post there, so it seems that you all like to form that protective bubble from the onset. And finally, the ideological positions that I posted about progressivism are based in fact, and have have been recently mentioned and advocated. Your litany of drivel re: conservative ideology is based in progressive delusion.

        Again, you simply don’t have a serious mind.

      • meursault1942 May 21, 2014 / 12:24 pm

        As long as there was something like a discussion you could stay but just posting insults without offering any ideas is what always gets you kicked off. // Moderator

    • Cluster May 20, 2014 / 12:02 pm

      My protective bubble? If it’s so protective, how in the hell are you here?

      I just decided to leave the sewer of toxicity that is the personal hate filled pathology of progressivism and engage in political discourse with people who actually discuss topics in an adult manner.

      • meursault1942 May 21, 2014 / 12:30 am

        As long as there was something like a discussion you could stay but just posting insults without offering any ideas is what always gets you kicked off. // Moderator

    • Amazona May 20, 2014 / 4:50 pm

      Huh? I, Amazona, am a woman. Clue: the feminine form of the word, as well as so many references over the years. And I am not only willing to engage in discourse, I encourage it, I ask for it, I ask again, and all I get is this kind of nonsense.

      It’s really quite funny to watch you guys run through the small list of acceptable “reasons” you people have invented for what we say and why. You have to go with what is most familiar to you from your own personal experience, so you fall back on anger, fear and paranoia. It’s like you have your little list and pick one at random. Today you went for a hat trick and named all three.

      You have posted many dozens of posts here, and not one of them has included a coherent political philosophy, an explanation of what kind of government you would prefer, why, or anything to support a contention that your preferred form would be workable and preferable.

      All you people do is skulk around the internet looking for places where people with a belief in Constitutional government gather to discuss ideas and events and then barge in, uninvited, to try to stink up the place with your attacks, insults, and baseless claims. Yet here you are again, spouting your toxic nonsense.

      If you think I am a man, I don’t care. If you think I am angry, or fearful, or paranoid, I don’t care. So far you have never been correct, and these projections of yours are no exception. You do not want to contribute to discourse, you just want to be a speed bump, you just want to make a lot of noise to interfere with us having civil conversations.

      Hey, you have evidently examined yourself to evaluate what you might ever be able to bring to a conversation, and this seems to be it—-noise and attempted interruption. I have certainly never seen anything to indicate anything else, or even an effort to indicate anything else. This is what you are, this is what you do.

      • meursault1942 May 20, 2014 / 10:34 pm

        As long as there was something like a discussion you could stay but just posting insults without offering any ideas is what always gets you kicked off. // Moderator.

  9. Amazona May 20, 2014 / 7:02 pm

    The response threads are getting too long, so I am going to bail out and start a new one.

    What I have seen here is a rational presentation of a desire to protect the very integrity of our voting process, countered by a strange and convoluted opposition to this that bounces around unsubstantiated claims that the requirement to prove who you are before voting is an INFRINGEMENT upon a BASIC RIGHT and is proof of bias against poor people blah blah blah blah.

    This is typical of what we can expect from these people:

    “Gotta say you provided the comic relief for the morning, Little Amy… Re-litigating the Wisconsin voter ID case based on the two quotes I provided from the judge’s 90-page decision. “

    Well, my nom de blog is Amazona, which has nothing at all to do with the name Amy, and I am 5’10” tall so the effort to denigrate me by constantly calling me “little” just shows ignorance and bigotry toward the vertically challenged.

    I did not attempt to “re-litigate” the case. Perhaps a basic understanding that words can’t just be redefined at will would sort out some of this nonsense, though taking redefinition of terms away from a Lib would prove to be quite crippling.

    “The Great and Powerful Little Amy is just the smartest person on the planet. She is smarter than every judge — well, every judge she disagrees with.”

    Now mersault takes us to the playground level of discourse, where he obviously feels most at home.

    “She is smart (sic) that she is immediately able to pick holes in rulings she doesn’t like without even reading the ruling.”

    Yet I quoted from the ruling. Do try to keep up.

    “She doesn’t even need to be in the court room to hear the evidence presented at trial! “

    However, I quoted the evidence presented by the judge which he used to support his ruling. If this is now deemed to be irrelevant then why was it cited by the ruling judge?

    “Because she already knows the correct ruling before the case is even presented! Why have courts at all in Amy-World? Let’s just appoint Amy Oz the great and powerful.”

    What a steaming pile of juvenile snark. Yet this is what seems to pass for rational discourse on the fringes of the far Loony Left.

    “Your stated philosophy is just a facade you’ve constructed to hide behind.”

    Too funny—-he squeals about his invention that I think I am all-powerful and then he proceeds to act as if he has a crystal ball that shows him my true beliefs, in spite of what I have been saying, consistently, here on the blog as well as elsewhere in my life, for more than eight years now. He and his kind refuse to state a political philosophy, claiming a variety of excuses, and now he just dismisses mine as a “facade” behind which I “hide”. Yet it is obvious, to anyone who reads it, that it is a concise and coherently stated belief in how best to govern the nation—-something we have yet to receive from him or anyone like him.

    ” It is obvious that you have no respect for the judicial process, as you have demonstrated time after time. In fact, you evidently don’t even understand what the judicial process entails, probably because you believe you are the only one who knows the real, secret purpose of the Supreme Court.”

    ????????? I see he is now back to playground-level snarling. Actually, the purpose of the Supreme Court is not a secret, and I am hardly the only who knows not only how and why it was created but how it has become so distorted that it now bears little resemblance, aside from the name, to the intent and purpose behind its original creation. He might read “Men In Black” for a primer on this. As for the rest of his little temper tantrum, he can squeal and kick the walls all he wants, he is still just noise. Waaaaaa waaaaaa waaaaaaa.

    “You claim to believe in limited government, but as a “philosophy,” your belief only extends to the federal branch.”

    I could hardly wait to get to this part. It is pure gold. Let me see if I get this whine right. I state a belief that the federal government is severely restricted as to size, scope and power by the Constitution, and refer to the 10th Amendment and its decree that what is not specifically delegated to the federal government within the Constitution is up to the States and to the People. And I state that this is based upon the Constitution itself.

    And poor sad silly shrill hysterical mersault is having a hissy fit because he has winkled out of this statement the TRUE belief that I think only the federal government should be severely restricted as to size, scope and power, and that the States should be responsible for whatever is not delegated to the feds.

    There is also a lie in this weird little rant of his—-surprise, surprise. He says I “claim to believe in limited government”. Yet if you read what I wrote, I claim—-because I DO—-believe (altogether now………) a FEDERAL government severely restricted as to size, scope and power. That is, a small federal government. It’s what I said, because it’s what I think, because it’s what I believe, and it is precisely what I have said all along.

    And he can’t point to a single thing I have ever said supporting a large state or local government, other than the comment that if people really do want some form of government subsidy for health insurance they have the right to vote for it, but not to do it at the federal level. (Quiz: Why? Answer: Because government subsidy for health insurance is not a delegated duty of the federal government and is, therefore, outside the restrictions of size, scope and power imposed by the Constitution.)

    “According to you, and as you have demonstrated on this blog in the past, all other branches of government can “do what they want,” as you once put it.”

    Well, I don’t remember saying that, and as the quote comes from you it’s highly likely I never did, particularly as I absolutely do NOT believe it. “(A)ll other branches of government” have to be severely limited, as well, particularly if they are branches of the federal government. Got a little lost there, didn’t you, out in the feverswamp?

    Do you mean not “other BRANCHES of government, but other LEVELS of government? Such as state and local levels? If so, then yes I do. It’s all part of that Constitutional Conservative thing you find so baffling. You clearly have never heard of it, but it is the heart and soul of the intent of the Founders, the 10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. The only restriction I see there, on the size, scope and power of the state governments is the restriction on doing anything already prohibited by the Constitution.

    “You really should write a book.”

    I just did

    • watsonthethird May 20, 2014 / 7:58 pm

      And poor sad silly shrill hysterical mersault is having a hissy fit because he has winkled out of this statement the TRUE belief that I think only the federal government should be severely restricted as to size, scope and power, and that the States should be responsible for whatever is not delegated to the feds.

      Um, it was, I, watson, who described your so-called philosophy. If you wigged out on meursault (and it is spelled m-e-u-r-s-a-u-l-t) for mistaking you for a man, I would think you would be a little more careful about correctly attributing something that was said here. And yes, I meant levels of government rather than branches of the federal government. Keep up the good work on your book. Perhaps Amazon will pair it with 150 Reasons.

      • Amazona May 20, 2014 / 8:43 pm

        Well, good for you for stepping up and taking the heat for those stupid comments.

        So you consider a mild correction “wigging out”? (In spite of me saying I don’t care?) Oh, that’s right—you on the radical fringe of the Loony Left do reserve the right to just define words any which way you want at the time. I guess you are “wigging out” over the mistaken identity thing, if “wigging out” refers to a correction of error, accompanied by another even snarkier “wigging out” over the spelling of the name. But then that is really all you have to gripe about, isn’t it?

        When every one of your whines is rebutted with fact, when we persist in dragging you back to reality, all that’s left for you is nagging and nitpicking. And this lets you snipe and bitch, without answering any of the points made.

        So what about my concise and coherent and consistent political philosophy do you find objectionable? Or false, if you are willing to stick with a common translation of “so-called”? Is it a “so-called” political philosophy, or are you saying my allegiance to it is “so-called”? As your effort to prove my convictions phony was centered on referring to alleged comments of mine that prove that they are not, any argument you try in this arena ought to be very interesting.

        I think you are miffed because I have a concise, coherent and consistent political philosophy, which is actually about politics—-that is, about how best to govern the country. After all, you can make no such claim. You probably don’t even know what is the political philosophy, or ideology, of the political system you support by default by relentlessly attacking its opposition, because really all you care about is that it validates your pathology and tells you that viciousness, slander and libel, hatefulness and spite and malice, are really good things if you direct them all toward a designated enemy, which is defined for you as “conservatives”. For once this ugliness, this negativity, are not seen as personality disorders, but are sanctified and glorified by your puppet masters as proof of your superiority, and this is all that matters to you.

        It seems that if you have a true conviction that the best way to govern this nation is to abandon our Constitution and adopt a Leftist model of infinitely expansive Central Authority, overriding state sovereignty and putting all or nearly all power in Washington DC and the hands of a ruling elite, you would jump at the chance to explain why this is your belief. It seems if you truly believe that the purpose of government is not to provide an umbrella of protection under which individuals may pursue their own paths to fulfillment, but to provide for all the needs of any people who happen to be in the country at any given time, you’d be happy to expound upon this, and defend it.

        If you truly believe that the best form of government for our nation is laid out in the Constitution,then you are a conservative and why are you so intent on attacking those who share this conviction?

        Or is it that actual government is immaterial to you, and all that you care about is Identity Politics, the game in which sides are drawn up and chosen and the Other becomes the target of as much loathing and contempt as you feel like launching at it, where any lie is justified because this is war and the Other is the enemy? This is what your meanderings here illustrate.

        So we have established that you are a liar, and also that you are so ignorant of the Constitution that you find the conviction that only the federal government should be severely restricted as to size, scope and power but that the states should be allowed to do anything not prohibited by the Constitution as inconsistent with claiming to believe the Constitution is the only correct and legal way to govern the nation. Not a surprise, but interesting to see you explain it, as you did, even after replacing the word “branches” with “levels”. That’s the funny thing about lying—-once you decide to lie about what I said, then you have to remember what it was that I supposedly said, and you end up with something as stupid as this.

    • watsonthethird May 20, 2014 / 11:08 pm

      As long as there was something like a discussion you could stay but just posting insults without offering any ideas is what always gets you kicked off. // Moderator

  10. Amazona May 20, 2014 / 9:08 pm

    One of the oh-so-many weird things about the shrill Lefty rants here about photo IDs to be able to vote is what appears to be a claim that there has to be a certain threshold of fraud for us to care. No matter how many examples are proved (and this is a very difficult thing to prove, by its very nature) their claim is that this number, whatever it might be, is not high enough for them to find significant.

    Well, when I see a law written, I don’t see a disclaimer saying that it can be violated up to a point, after which it has to be enforced. I don’t see a law saying murder is illegal, after the 50th murder, but till then it’s fine. I don’t see a speed limit that only kicks in after 300 drivers have broken the posted limit. But these guys are obsessed with what they claim is too small a number of proven voter fraud to care about.

    Which is, I guess, consistent with an overall philosophy of relativity—-there is no objective right or wrong, but everything depends on the whim of the moment. So they seem to be arbitrarily establishing a relativity clause in the voter fraud laws—it’s OK till they finally decide it isn’t, for the reason of the day. (Which we all know will be when a Republican wins, and suddenly the entire Left is galvanized to not only care about voter fraud but to find it in every ballot box.)

    • watsonthethird May 21, 2014 / 11:09 am

      As long as there was something like a discussion you could stay but just posting insults without offering any ideas is what always gets you kicked off. // Moderator

      • Cluster May 21, 2014 / 11:48 am

        One of the oh-so-many weird things about conservatives is what appears to be their utter lack of respect for individual rights.

        Oh boy – here we go again. Whine, bitch and moan about faux issues. Aside from the recent poll that showed 70% support for voter id laws, including 55% democrat support, here is another example of liberal support for such laws:

        http://providence.thephoenix.com/news/138781-who-passed-voter-id/

      • watsonthethird May 21, 2014 / 12:09 pm

        Cluster, you want to start this entire conversation all over again. Just read this thread. The answers are here.

      • Cluster May 21, 2014 / 12:13 pm

        Yes, I know the answers are here. They include but not limited to – you can’t prove that voter id is a burden, states are assisting people with obtaining ID’s, there is not one concrete example of anyone being disenfranchised, the majority Americans support it, and the majority of states, including very blue states, already have laws in place.

        It’s time for you to become over emotional about something else.

      • watsonthethird May 21, 2014 / 12:19 pm

        As long as there was something like a discussion you could stay but just posting insults without offering any ideas is what always gets you kicked off. // Moderator

  11. meursault1942 May 20, 2014 / 10:40 pm

    As long as there was something like a discussion you could stay but just posting insults without offering any ideas is what always gets you kicked off. // Moderator

  12. Amazona May 21, 2014 / 11:29 am

    I came here this morning to address something I saw in passing last night when I skimmed over the blog before leaving for the evening. It has since been removed but I wish it was still here because I think it is one of, if not THE, most significant differences between Left and Right.

    I don’t know who wrote it, meursault or watson, and God forbid I might confuse them, though they are pretty indistinguishable. (Their mommies might catch any differences.) And I can’t quote it verbatim because, as I said, I just caught a couple of phrases which caught my eye in the midst of the usual drivel.

    What I remember was a claim that the writer does believe in the Constitution—but not as the law of the land, merely as a “framework” for how to govern the nation. And this, I think, not only deserves but demands discussion.

    I find this significant because for one thing it provides a mask of pretense, of paying lip service to the foundational and governing document of our country while in actuality working to undermine it and eventually eliminate it. It also explains why Liberals do not feel bound by the Constitution. They see it as nothing more than some vague, infinitely flexible, suggestions. And THIS, I think, is the biggest problem we, as a nation, face.

    The Left has done a pretty good job of eroding understanding of and respect for what is, and should be, the most important aspect of this country, and this Lib, whichever one it happened to be, is proof of this.

    I am in the process of revising our company’s Operating Agreement. This is a small company, not an entire nation, but we are absolutely bound by the terms of the Operating Agreement we will soon vote to adopt. It will be a “framework” in that it provides the structure of the company, but not in the sense of merely being a list of suggestions about our responsibilities, limitations, liabilities, etc. It will not be a list of recommendations for how we can do this or that or the other. It will be a contract among us, binding and precise and inflexible, and although it can be amended (as it is now being amended) through a specific process, it cannot be ignored and it is not just a list of suggestions on how we might do things, if we are so inclined.

    To do this, I am constantly referring to state statutes, to be sure that we are compliant with the rules of the state regarding certain aspects of our kind of company. Some of these state statutes refer to federal regulations, which if properly passed and in compliance with the Constitution’s commitment to state sovereignty have precedence over state regulations.

    None of this is arbitrary, nor flexible. Once we ratify our amended Operating Agreement, we are bound by it. If we want to do something, it has to be allowed by the Agreement. If it is, then it also has to be allowed by state statute. (This is one reason we are rewriting it, with a new lawyer, as the lawyer who wrote it was very sloppy and his agreement was sometimes not in compliance with state statutes.)

    While this is on a very small scale, infinitesimal compared to the importance of the national governing agreement, nevertheless our Constitution IS an Operating Agreement. It is a contract, with specific terms, and must be followed unless and until amended via the stated process for doing so. It is what it is, it says what it says, and it is not open to much in the way of interpretation.

    One example is the 10th Amendment. It is very precise. There are some phrases in the Constitution which are a little confusing, because though they were quite precise when written there have been some changes in the language since then, and the language used at that time is not always well understood today. But the interpretation is, or at least should be, only to determine what the language usage of that day means in today’s terms.

    An example would be if we could move backward in time, and look at the problems in interpreting a document which used the word “digital”. In our time, we know what this means. Taken back 250 years, it might be interpreted to mean something to with the fingers or toes. So the time travel interpreter would have to examine writings contemporaneous with our time to learn how we use that term today, what it means, and its origin. We can do that when we look at the Constitution today. We can find arguments that the term “general welfare” means the federal government is delegated the duty to provide for the general welfare of every citizen. But we can look at the contemporaneous writings of the Founders, who wrote the Constitution, and see how they responded to people who were, even back then, trying to expand the scope and power of the federal government.

    The aspects of the Constitution that bother Liberals the most seem to be:

    1. That it specifically restricts the federal government to only the duties delegated to it in the original document. Period. This is confirmed by the belt-and-suspenders approach of the 10th Amendment, which adds heft to the original wording by restating it in even clearer terms—-if it’s not specifically assigned to the feds, the feds can’t do it.

    2. That it preserves most of the power and authority in this country to the states, or to the people.

    When you dissect the various whinings and bleatings of the Libs about the Constitution, they seem to always come back to this—–that they hate and fight the Constitution because it limits the power of the State over the people, and gives the power to the people over the State.

    Once you understand this, the whole Left comes into focus. It is never, no matter what the claims, no matter how elaborate the masks, no matter how impassioned the rhetoric, about the rights of the individual. Ever. It is always about the power of the State—in their minds, the federal government—–and its ability to insert itself into every aspect of the lives of the people.

    • watsonthethird May 21, 2014 / 12:17 pm

      Because this is in a chain of insults and attacks it would be deleted, but Amazona asked to be able to discuss this topic. // Moderator

      I used the term “framework,” Amazona. Of course I believe in governing the United States by the Constitution and by law. I said that but the moderator deleted it. As for the term “framework,” a lot of laws have been passed by Congress and signed by presidents over the years. They aren’t all explicitly contained in the Constitution, are they? How do we know which laws can be struck down as unconstitutional and which ones can’t? The Constitution itself provides the framework for that. That’s all I meant. I don’t think we disagree on that point, but fixate on the word all you want; I don’t really care.

      You said last night that if one doesn’t agree with your interpretation of the Constitution, then such a person must “have a true conviction that the best way to govern this nation is to abandon our Constitution and adopt a Leftist model of infinitely expansive Central Authority.” Utterly ridiculous. Keep creating those straw men…

      P.S. At this point I don’t know which comments will be deleted or replaced by moderator comments, since both have happened in this thread for what appears to be arbitrary reasons.

      • meursault1942 May 21, 2014 / 12:27 pm

        As long as there was something like a discussion you could stay but just posting insults without offering any ideas is what always gets you kicked off. // Moderator

      • Amazona May 21, 2014 / 1:42 pm

        “As for the term “framework,” a lot of laws have been passed by Congress and signed by presidents over the years. They aren’t all explicitly contained in the Constitution, are they? How do we know which laws can be struck down as unconstitutional and which ones can’t? The Constitution itself provides the framework for that. ”

        If this is what you mean by “framework” we are not as far apart as I thought.

        But your questions indicate some basic confusion about the Constitution and how it has to be applied.

        “… a lot of laws have been passed by Congress and signed by presidents over the years. They aren’t all explicitly contained in the Constitution, are they?”

        No. But a law in and of itself does not have to be “explicitly contained in the Constitution”. On the contrary, if this was a requirement the Constitution would be unmanageable. So you take a law and look at which of the enumerated duties of the federal government it is written to enforce. You see, a duty is delegated or enumerated, such as national defense, and then under the umbrella of that enumerated duty many laws have to be written. So Congress might pass a law regarding the size or structure of our military, or establishing a new post or base, or some such thing. As long as the law is specifically written to support the duty of national defense, it is probably Constitutional, unless it is an omnibus law in which additional unrelated things are bundled in with the actual military aspects.

        “How do we know which laws can be struck down as unconstitutional and which ones can’t? ”

        Well, we have to look at the Constitution and see where, within the delegated duties the law falls. As we have been talking about the ACA, this might be a good place to look. In the enumerated duties of the federal government there is nothing at all about providing health care, or financing for health care. Some believe that the Constitution demands the federal government provide for the general welfare, so we would have to go back into the contemporaneous writings of those who wrote the Constitution, and those who did not actually write it but participated in the process, to see what they meant by the phrase. When we do that, we find that they not only did NOT mean that the government was responsible for the welfare of each and every citizen, they were quite adamant about it, as well as about the expansion of federal power if this were to be accepted as a constitutionally assigned responsibility.

        What so many of us find when we do this is that, while providing the means to pay for health care is not a delegated duty of the federal government, and is therefore forbidden to it, assistance such as this is not prohibited, which means it falls to the States, or to the People, to provide it. This makes it a state issue, not a federal one.

        To understand this all you have to do is study the founding of the nation, the writings of the Founders both before and after the Revolution, their motives and philosophies and beliefs. The strongest and most consistent of these was the determination to avoid and prevent, at all costs, the decline of this nation from being one of government by and for the people to one with a hugely powerful Central Authority. When you understand this, then the prohibition of anything beyond the stated scope of the federal government makes sense, because state sovereignty over everything but the enumerated duties ensures that power cannot be concentrated in a Central Authority.

      • Amazona May 21, 2014 / 2:05 pm

        Quoting you, referring to me: “You said last night that if one doesn’t agree with your interpretation of the Constitution, then such a person must “have a true conviction that the best way to govern this nation is to abandon our Constitution and adopt a Leftist model of infinitely expansive Central Authority.””

        Of course, this is simply not true, but a lie, and a lie developed and told to provide a foundation for your later claim that I set up straw men. What makes this particularly amusing is that by doing this you set up a straw man.

        Let’s look at what I really did say, OK?

        “It seems that IF you “have a true conviction that the best way to govern this nation is to abandon our Constitution and adopt a Leftist model of infinitely expansive Central Authority….”

        If. An important word. I said, and this is very very clear, IF you have this belief you ought to
        “…… jump at the chance to explain why this is your belief. ”

        I went on to say “IF you truly believe that the purpose of government is not to provide an umbrella of protection under which individuals may pursue their own paths to fulfillment, but to provide for all the needs of any people who happen to be in the country at any given time, you’d be happy to expound upon this, and defend it.”

        This is just one of the reasons it is impossible to have a rational discussion with you people. You just invent s**t and then attribute it to people who never said it, just so you can complain about what they never said as if they did. Between that and the redefining of terms, there is no linear quality to a discussion with you, no coherence because as soon as a point it is made it is reframed to say something entirely different, to allow the conversation to be knocked off track into talking about something that was never said anyway—but about which you have developed some righteous indignation which you then use to justify some insults.

        After experiencing years of this, accompanied by lying and insults and fierce dedication to knee-jerk opposition to anything said by anyone defined as a “conservative”, I have learned that even when I give someone like you the benefit of the doubt and try to engage in actual discourse, it is inevitable that your same old tactics of diversion, distraction, lying, misquoting, smearing and general conversational vandalism will make it all a waste of time.

        Every now and then I go back over a thread and I see the same thing every time. People like DB, Spook, Cluster and myself will provide example after example of whatever it is we are talking about, and when a fact is presented you (plural “you”) simply ignore that fact, or all the facts that have accumulated, and spin off in a different direction.

      • Amazona May 21, 2014 / 2:17 pm

        Here is an example of the kind of research that one would do when exploring the question of whether or not something complies with the Constitution. (emphasis mine)

        Although the Spending Clause is the source of congressional authority to levy taxes, it permits the levying of taxes for two purposes only: to pay the debts of the United States, and to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. Taken together, these purposes have traditionally been held to imply and constitute the “Spending Power.”

        To many today, those two purposes are so broad as to amount to no limitation at all. The contemporary view is that Congress’s power to provide for the “general Welfare” is a power to spend for virtually anything that Congress itself views as helpful. To be sure, some of the Founders, most notably Alexander Hamilton, supported an expansive spending power during the Constitutional Convention; but such proposals, including an explicit attempt to authorize spending by the federal government for internal improvements, were rejected by the Convention. Hamilton continued to press his case by arguing during George Washington’s administration for an expansive interpretation of the clause (which Washington adopted). In his “Report on Manufactures” (1791), Hamilton contended that the only limits on the tax-and-spend power were the requirements that duties be uniform, that direct taxes be apportioned by population, and that no tax should be laid on articles exported from any state. The power to raise money was otherwise “plenary, and indefinite,” he argued, “and the objects to which it may be appropriated are no less comprehensive.”

        Hamilton’s broad reading met with opposition from many of the other Founders. James Madison repeatedly argued that the power to tax and spend did not confer upon Congress the right to do whatever it thought to be in the best interest of the nation, but only to further the ends specifically enumerated elsewhere in the Constitution, a position supported by Thomas Jefferson.

        There was also a third, more intermediate, interpretation, recognized later even by Alexander Hamilton. According to this view, the “common Defence and general Welfare” language is not, as Madison contended, a shorthand way of limiting the power to tax and spend in furtherance of the powers elsewhere enumerated in Article I, Section 8; but it does contain its own limitation, namely, that spending under the clause be for the “general” (that is, national) welfare and not for purely local or regional benefit. President James Monroe later adopted this position—albeit with more teeth than Hamilton had been willing to give it—in his 1822 message vetoing a bill to preserve and repair the Cumberland Road. Monroe contended that Congress’s power to spend was restricted “to purposes of common defence, and of general, national, not local, or state, benefit.”

        More reading on this subject shows that to these people, “general, national,….benefit” was benefit to the entity that is the United States, not to infrastructure or charity, such as financial support, etc. A request that the government provide assistance to the widows of men who died in a naval disaster was rejected because it did not comply with the contemporaneous definition of “general welfare”.

      • Amazona May 21, 2014 / 2:34 pm

        Though this is from an article by Andrew McCarthy, in National Review, it is an analysis of the General Welfare Clause based upon academic review and quotes of the Founders. (emphasis mine)

        “Alexander Hamilton contended that Congress’s taxing authority is “plenary, and indefinite,” and that “the objects to which it may be appropriated [i.e., the general welfare] are no less comprehensive.” He successfully persuaded George Washington to adopt this construction during the first presidential administration. Yet it was widely rejected. In fact, the Framers of the Constitution denied a Hamiltonian proposal to include a provision authorizing the federal government to spend public funds on internal improvements. Most presidential administrations, moreover, recognized that Hamilton’s construction of the general welfare could, as James K. Polk’s crystal ball warned, “absorb the revenues of the country, and plunge the government into a hopeless indebtedness.”

        Second is the position that is generally credited to James Madison but was shared by Thomas Jefferson — the one I believe is correct. It holds that the preamble’s General Welfare Clause, right before the Constitution’s exacting enumeration of Congress’s powers, merely makes clear that Congress has the authority to raise revenue and spend in furtherance of those specified powers. Those powers include many things: declaring war, raising armed forces, regulating interstate and international commerce, establishing post offices and the lower federal courts, etc. But they do not include welfare-state programs.

      • watsonthethird May 21, 2014 / 2:45 pm

        Let’s look at what I really did say, OK?

        You’re right; you did couch that part as a conditional. But then you wound up by concluding that my “meanderings here” illustrate that actual government is immaterial to me, all I care about is Identity Politics, etc. Here’s the larger quote, but I’m happy to retract my response to it. Unfortunately, my other comments were removed by the moderator on the theory that I was insulting someone. So feel free to carry on with your monolog.

        It seems that if you have a true conviction that the best way to govern this nation is to abandon our Constitution and adopt a Leftist model of infinitely expansive Central Authority, overriding state sovereignty and putting all or nearly all power in Washington DC and the hands of a ruling elite, you would jump at the chance to explain why this is your belief. It seems if you truly believe that the purpose of government is not to provide an umbrella of protection under which individuals may pursue their own paths to fulfillment, but to provide for all the needs of any people who happen to be in the country at any given time, you’d be happy to expound upon this, and defend it.

        If you truly believe that the best form of government for our nation is laid out in the Constitution,then you are a conservative and why are you so intent on attacking those who share this conviction?

        Or is it that actual government is immaterial to you, and all that you care about is Identity Politics, the game in which sides are drawn up and chosen and the Other becomes the target of as much loathing and contempt as you feel like launching at it, where any lie is justified because this is war and the Other is the enemy? This is what your meanderings here illustrate.

        If this is what you mean by “framework” we are not as far apart as I thought.

        Yes, believe it or not, even progressives, or whatever you want to call me, believe in the rule of law and the Constitution. So do justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Perhaps this thread will serve as some enlightenment after all.

        Every now and then I go back over a thread and I see the same thing every time. People like DB, Spook, Cluster and myself will provide example after example of whatever it is we are talking about, and when a fact is presented you (plural “you”) simply ignore that fact, or all the facts that have accumulated, and spin off in a different direction.

        Oh, hogwash. Ample examples have been presented here, including quoting from the court decisions regarding voter ID, linking to the public opinion polls I cited, and so on. You don’t agree with it, so you (the collective you) resort to denigrating it. You (collectively) refer to such judges as “activist judges,” “making up absurd excuses for overturning the will of the people,” “PA judge would have peed down his leg in delight to be responsible for something like that in his state.”

        You, specifically, characterize one of the judge’s rulings as “bias does not ooze out of this ruling, it sprays out in all directions. I hope they elect judges in Wisconsin, because this dog’s dinner of a political agenda barely even disguised as an objective analysis of fact and law ought to get this clown kicked off the bench.”

        You (collectively) refer to commenters with whom you disagree with as “brain dead,” an “absolute abject moron,” and “a failure on every level,” “stupid,” “the wattle,” and on and on, are not insults. You’re application of moderating insults is pretty inconsistent.

      • Amazona May 21, 2014 / 2:54 pm

        Thomas Jefferson on the General Welfare clause: (emphasis mine)


        “The construction applied… to those parts of the Constitution of the United States which delegate to Congress a power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imports, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States,” and “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the powers vested by the Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof,” goes to the destruction of all limits prescribed to [the General Government’s] power by the Constitution… Words meant by the instrument to be subsidiary only to the execution of limited powers ought not to be construed as themselves to give unlimited powers, nor a part to be so taken as to destroy the whole residue of that instrument.” –Thomas Jefferson: Draft Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. ME 17:385

        “To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States, that is to say, “to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare.” For the laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union.” –Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on National Bank, 1791. ME 3:147

        “Aided by a little sophistry on the words “general welfare,” [the federal branch claim] a right to do not only the acts to effect that which are specifically enumerated and permitted, but whatsoever they shall think or pretend will be for the general welfare.” –Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1825. ME 16:147

        “They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please… Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect.”-Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on National Bank, 1791. ME 3:148

        “It is an established rule of construction where a phrase will bear either of two meanings, to give it that which will allow some meaning to the other parts of the instrument, and not that which would render all the others useless.” –Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on National Bank, 1791. ME 3:148

        “The general rule, in the construction of instruments, [is] to leave no words merely useless, for which any rational meaning can be found.” –Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on the Tonnage Payable, 1791. ME 3:290

        “For authority to apply the surplus [of taxes] to objects of improvement, an amendment of the Constitution would have been necessary.” –Thomas Jefferson to John W. Eppes, 1813. ME 13:354

        “[If] it [were] assumed that the general government has a right to exercise all powers which may be for the ‘general welfare,’ that [would include] all the legitimate powers of government, since no government has a legitimate right to do what is not for the welfare of the governed.” –Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1792. ME 8:397

        “Our tenet ever was… that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated, and that, as it was never meant that they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money.” –Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin, 1817. ME 15:133

        “Congress are authorized to defend the nation. Ships are necessary for defence; copper is necessary for ships; mines necessary for copper; a company necessary to work mines; and who can doubt this reasoning who has ever played at ‘This is the House that Jack built?’ Under such a process of filiation of necessities the sweeping clause makes clean work.” –Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1800. ME 10:165

        “If, wherever the Constitution assumes a single power out of many which belong to the same subject, we should consider it as assuming the whole, it would vest the General Government with a mass of powers never contemplated. On the contrary, the assumption of particular powers seems an exclusion of all not assumed.” –Thomas Jefferson to Joseph C. Cabell, 1814. ME 14:83

        “I hope our courts will never countenance the sweeping pretensions which have been set up under the words ‘general defence and public welfare.’ These words only express the motives which induced the Convention to give to the ordinary legislature certain specified powers which they enumerate, and which they thought might be trusted to the ordinary legislature, and not to give them the unspecified also; or why any specification? They could not be so awkward in language as to mean, as we say, ‘all and some.’ And should this construction prevail, all limits to the federal government are done away.” –Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1815. ME 14:350

        “This phrase,… by a mere grammatical quibble, has countenanced the General Government in a claim of universal power. For in the phrase, ‘to lay taxes, to pay the debts and provide for the general welfare,’ it is a mere question of syntax, whether the two last infinitives are governed by the first or are distinct and coordinate powers; a question unequivocally decided by the exact definition of powers immediately following.” –Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin, 1817. ME 15:133

        “Although the power to regulate commerce does not give a power to build piers, wharves, open ports, clear the beds of rivers, dig canals, build warehouses, build manufacturing machines, set up manufactories, cultivate the earth, to all of which the power would go if it went to the first, yet a power to provide and maintain a navy is a power to provide receptacles for it, and places to cover and preserve it.” –Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin, 1802. ME 10:337

        “While we pursue, then, the construction of the Legislature, that the repairing and erecting lighthouses, beacons, buoys, and piers, is authorized as belonging to the regulation of commerce, we must take care not to go ahead of them and strain the meaning of the terms still further to the clearing out the channels of all the rivers, etc., of the United States. The removing a sunken vessel is not the repairing of a pier.” –Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin, 1803. ME 10:379

        “I suppose an amendment to the Constitution, by consent of the States, necessary [for certain objects of public improvement], because the objects now recommended are not among those enumerated in the Constitution, and to which it permits the public moneys to be applied.” –Thomas Jefferson: 6th Annual Message, 1806. ME 3:424

        “The interests of commerce place the principal object [i.e., a western exploring expedition] within the constitutional powers and care of Congress, and that it should incidentally advance the geographical knowledge of our own continent, can not but be an additional gratification.” –Thomas Jefferson: Confidential Message on Western Exploration, 1803. ME 3:493

        This is the kind of reading one has to do if one is confused by wording in the Constitution. Wishful thinking is not enough to apply a meaning to a phrase—it must be interpreted according to its original intent, which is discerned by looking at what the writers discussed and what they said about what they wrote.

        (Yes, I know Jefferson was in France while the Constitution was being drafted, but he was in constant communication with the Framers, and was a significant part of the process.)

      • tiredoflibbs May 21, 2014 / 5:09 pm

        Watson: “Meanwhile, I and others have had comments in this thread deleted for no apparent reason.”

        Watty, the reasons are clear and consistent. You just refuse to see that you and your ilk cannot actually debate. Well, let me correct that. You and your ilk try to debate, fail and then resort to attack and insult. It is your modus operandi. Cluster set up a blog so you can “debate” but sadly you and your ilk resorted to your usual ways, FORCING Cluster to shut is down, temporarily. The new blog you guys set up is just a rehash of the same – no real debate, just a place you trash, attack and insult anyone that does not kowtow to your thinking and blindly follow the One You Have Been Waiting For.

      • Amazona May 21, 2014 / 5:45 pm

        The principles outlined in the Kentucky Resolution (and the parallel Virginia Resolution authored by James Madison) became the platform for Jefferson’s emerging political party and the primary grounds on which Jefferson challenged the incumbent President John Adams in the election of 1800. Indeed, Thomas Jefferson was later to write that the different interpretations of the general welfare clause put forward by Hamilton, on the one hand, and Madison and Jefferson, on the other, was “almost the only landmark which now divides the federalists from the republicans… .” Thus, although Hamilton’s reading carried the day for a while in the Executive branch during the 1790s, the issue remained hotly disputed and Hamilton’s view was essentially repudiated by the election of 1800. What is more, the election of 1800 was not a revolution in thought about the expanse of the spending power, but a return to what had been the common understanding of the phrase employed and the underlying principle it codified that had been in place almost since the new nation was created in 1776. And from 1800 to 1860, almost every President held to the Jeffersonian/Madisonian position by vetoing as unconstitutional various internal improvement bills enacted by Congress, oftentimes explicitly relying upon Madison’s views.

        In the closing days of his second term as President, for example, Madison himself vetoed an internal improvements bill that would have funded the construction of roads and canals “in order to facilitate, promote, and give security to internal commerce among the several States, and to render more easy and less expensive the means and provisions for the common defence… .” Madison rejected the contention that the Spending Clause authorized such expenditures, stating that such a broad reading would render “the special and careful enumeration of powers, which follow the clause, nugatory and improper.” In what is perhaps the best articulation of his position, Madison rejected both the “strong” and the “weak” Hamiltonian positions:

        Such a view of the Constitution would have the effect of giving to Congress a general power of legislation, instead of the defined and limited one hitherto understood to belong to them; the terms “common defence and general welfare,” embracing every object and act within the purview of a legislative trust . . . . A restriction of the power “to provide for the common defence and general welfare,” to cases which are to be provided for by the expenditure of money, would still leave within the legislative power of Congress all the great and most important measures of
        Government; money being the ordinary and necessary means of carrying them into execution.

        Nearly half a century later, President James Buchanan still adhered to the same position. In his message vetoing the college land grant bill, President Buchanan took it as a given that the funds raised by Congress from taxation were “confined to the execution of the enumerated powers delegated to Congress.” The idea that the resources of the federal government–either taxes or the public lands–could be diverted to carry into effect any measure of state domestic policy that Congress saw fit to support “would be to confer upon Congress a vast and irresponsible authority, utterly at war with the well-known jealousy of Federal power which prevailed at the formation of the Constitution.” “The natural intendment” of those who drafted and ratified the Constitution, he continued,would be that as the Constitution confined Congress to well-defined specific powers, the funds placed at their command, whether in land or money, should be appropriated to the performance of the duties corresponding with these powers. If not, a Government has been created with all its other powers carefully limited, but without any limitation with respect to the public lands.

        See more at: http://www.claremont.org/index.php?act=basicPageArticle&id=161&bpId=103#.U3z2GSjjLhQ

      • Amazona May 21, 2014 / 5:49 pm

        ““Meanwhile, I and others have had comments in this thread deleted for no apparent reason.””

        I saw reasons given, or at least one reason given. Still having trouble processing the written word?

      • Amazona May 21, 2014 / 6:11 pm

        ” How do we know which laws can be struck down as unconstitutional and which ones can’t?”

        OK, I gave my opinion about how one might determine the constitutionality of a law. I have provided analysis and quotes that would be used to determine a law allegedly supported by the Spending Clause, or the General Welfare Clause. I have given historical references, contemporaneous writings of some of the Founders and Framers, and some analysis of some arguments. The same method would be, or at least used to be, applied by anyone trying to determine the constitutionality of any law.

        This is why I have no respect at all for legal opinions which are just pulled out of some justice’s rear end, such as the bizarre Roe v Wade ruling, which stated that it was based on a perceived “penumbra” of an “emanation” of a previously undiscovered “right”, not the right of a female to arbitrarily end an inconvenient life but the determination that what mattered, and what was at issue, was really just protecting the privacy of the female. Privacy. Ending a human life is OK if the person making the decision has her privacy protected, because of a vague sense of an invisible aura emanating from something determined to be there by people who just wanted to rule as they did. There is not one single word in the Constitution that gives federal protection to the arbitrary ending of a human life for no reason other than “I want to” which is what makes Roe v Wade bad law. It was legislating from the bench, in that it was not based on law but on feelings and a preordained agenda.

        This is not interpretation of the Constitution as intended by the Founders, but manipulation and distortion of the power of five unelected political appointees sharing an agenda. Any ruling that is based upon a subjective sense of feeling something that is not there, that “emanates” from something else that is not there, to offer federal protection for an act not mentioned in the Constitution, is the definition of legislating from the bench, inventing law instead of applying Constitutional standards to a law.

        And this doesn’t even take into account the 10th Amendment aspect, which is that if something is not specifically delegated to the federal government it is up to the States, or the People. That is every bit as important as the clairvoyant approach to judicial analysis.

      • Amazona May 21, 2014 / 6:43 pm

        “Since your (sic) on speaking terms with the moderator, why don’t you ask him or her about it and then explain the methodology to the rest of us.”

        I’m not sure why you are so sure that I am, as you say, “on speaking terms with the moderator”. I have had offblog email conversations with some posters, as well as others on the blog, but I have only actually SPOKEN with one other blog personality, Spook. Are you saying Spook is a moderator?

        What I don’t get is why you think you are entitled to post here, or that you are entitled to explanations about why sometimes you can’t. I post here at the pleasure of the blog owners. Period. I have had posts removed, and I accept that, because it is not my blog. Their blog, their rules. They owe me NOTHING.

        It’s not as if you actually contribute anything. You had an opinion, it was contrary to those usually expressed here, it was argued, you got pissy, and it went downhill from there. Personally, I would have kicked you off a lot earlier, when you started whining. But that’s just me.

        My perception is that when you know you can’t argue facts you still want to hijack and derail the blog, so you start in trying to shift everything to arguing about personalities. That is boring. It also interrupts discussion of things that are a lot more important than your FEELINGS. It feeds your ego, because as long as we are responding to your incessant whining and complaining you are center stage, but this blog is not about you and maybe, just maybe, that’s part of why you are not welcome here.

        IMO………..

      • watsonthethird May 22, 2014 / 12:15 am

        I’m not sure why you are so sure that I am, as you say, “on speaking terms with the moderator”.

        Speaking terms, as in communicating in some way with the moderator. After all, the moderator said, “Because this is in a chain of insults and attacks it would be deleted, but Amazona asked to be able to discuss this topic.”

        Here is the quote from the post, published here for everyone to read. “I came here this morning to address something I saw in passing last night when I skimmed over the blog before leaving for the evening. It has since been removed but I wish it was still here because I think it is one of, if not THE, most significant differences between Left and Right.” We took the phrase “I wish it was still here” to mean she wanted the chance to respond. This was seen as “communicating in some way.” // Moderator

      • Amazona May 22, 2014 / 9:41 am

        Uh-oh—now my secret meetings with moderators have been revealed, and so has my secret code. How ever will I find a replacement as covert as saying something right out where everyone can read it, using actual words?

        The problem is, now my secret meetings with watson have also been outed, as I have used the same previously impenetrable messaging system with him, addressing him directly and using straightforward English words.

        Damn you, moderator, for disclosing our secret communication method! Do you still have your secret decoder ring?

      • watsonthethird May 22, 2014 / 12:45 pm

        You get posts removed because they are nothing but insults and then you defend yourself by insulting the moderator. There is no obligation to allow you to post and your recent behavior has made us question the decision to let you back on the blog. You have a pattern of posting what seems to be a desire to discuss your ideas but once you are allowed to post it is the rat’s nose under the tent and within days you have reverted to your disruptive ways. No more. If you want to moderate a blog moderate your own. // Moderator

Comments are closed.