... so that I don't keep occasionally hijacking others' threads with off topic posts.
Hope some are an interesting read to ya'll, and discussion is of course welcome;
I'll start with this one, which I think is probably best posted with the title, link and small excerpt (<-- hoping that's the appropriate way to post articles on other forums);
Once Conservatives started "compromising" their principles of individual freedom and less government in favor of the Progressive's collective ideology, the end of America's free Republic became preordained.
...personally, I woulda began the progressive era catastrophe before the 16th amendment, which the article begins it at. I'd go back at least to the 14th amendment. But that wasn't a compromise by the R party (which somehow is assumed to have a quantum entanglement with 'conservative') and doesn't fit the article's primary point of how compromise has proven destructive, it was the party's primary mission at the time.
in the light of my frequent mentioning/complaining about the current culture far too readily accepting 'too many laws' and 'legislating every aspect of life' -- i thought this was worth posting..
Gorsuch disagreed. "History shows that governments sometimes seek to regulate our lives finely, acutely, thoroughly, and exhaustively," he writes. "In our own time and place, criminal laws have grown so exuberantly and come to cover so much previously innocent conduct that almost anyone can be arrested for something. If the state could use these laws not for their intended purposes but to silence those who voice unpopular ideas, little would be left of our First Amendment liberties, and little would separate us from the tyrannies of the past or the malignant fiefdoms of our own age. The freedom to speak without risking arrest is 'one of the principal characteristics by which we distinguish a free nation.'"
Surely a SCOTUS justice expressing the same point gives the point more credibility than it coming from just a common old fart in a forum. I'm pretty well taking it as confirmation that it's a credible and important point to continue to be repeated. My respect for Gorsuch continues to grow and I think we need more 'originalists' in SCOTUS, and society in general.
Good post, Larry!
I quote: "If the state could use these laws not for their intended purposes but to silence those who voice unpopular ideas, little would be left of our First Amendment liberties, and little would separate us from the tyrannies of the past..."
Look at where the dems took Rowe v Wade alone. They literally celebrated the passing of the "right" to MURDER new born babies. Then there's the crime law that wild Bill Clinton had signed that only helped inprison more blacks accross the country. (Btw, Biden gave that law his blessing, remember?)
Anyone w/ half a functioning brain SEES what the democrat-socialist ideology brings to our communities: High, stinking, piles of human excrement, hyperdermic needles and syringes. Cities like Frisco have been "fundamentally transformed" petrie dishes that cultivate DISEASES.
Then there's their sanctuary cities/states. How many of the 10s of thousands of illegals that storm/invade our southern border are properly vaccinated? I'd say zero. Perfect entry way for human-biological weapons alone. Am I right?!
yeah, great examples everywhere ya look, some are honestly extreme;
There are no principles – not ethical, moral, legal, constitutional, religious, spiritual – NONE. There’s only power. And when we get the power, everybody else fucking duck.
Lesson for everybody else:
Get the power.
— Jeffrey Wright (@jfreewright) May 29, 2019
it's a simple basic trait of humanity, if the laws are in place they eventually WILL BE abused far far beyond original intent. It's the nature of government and the politicians occupying it to expand it's/their power. Limited government means limited laws aimed at regulating/manipulating the people.
p.s.... oh, of course you're right - as is usual. there's similar headlines today i think
was just reading a couple headlines about last night's 1st D primary debate... and got to thinking..:
applying some "old news" narratives =
. obie built himself a structure that very likely provides him the 'leading from behind' scenario he has publicly stated he prefers. it'd be foolish to believe he has faded away into irrelevance within the D political realm. He has bookoos of bureaucrats still in place everywhere, judges, etc.. and politicians he gave positions to prepare their resume's for presidential runs... = like Castro
. Castro and his congressman twin brother were raised for this moment by their mother. Who was a core BIG DOG executive within the LaRaza movement, who were all about The Race(La Raza) infiltrating U.S. politics to facilitate Mexicans taking control of America. (it's a very similar plan to Islam's in that way) Is it any wonder he advocates 'No Borders"?? A= no. Obie put Castro in the typical D party establishment's potential 'next-in-line' position for this election cycle.
so, in that narrative I highly suspect it will be Castro who gets the nomination. That should be feared given the now renamed LaRaza organization he has behind him, and moreso if he can get the Justice Democrats organization on his team. I expect that would not be the clusterf... of incompetence that the whole of the D potentials appear to be now - at all.
" it'd be foolish to believe he (BO) has faded away into irrelevance within the D political realm."
I agree. He accomplished in 8yrs what the Clinton-machine couldn't their entire...now irrelvent...lives. Plus, the O's are smart enough not to eevn try a Hillary style stadium tour. It wouldn't help them at all.
Btw: After hearing some of the highlights on the radio so far, last night's Dem debate was every bit the snoozer as was forecasted w/ the exception of Robert Frankie O'rourke. I heard his feed. Three letters: LOL! It was a SNL skit!
Tonight the heavy hitting intellectuals will take the stage and d show those second string rookies how it's done! Hooray for Bernie and Biden! hahaha
I still have plenty of grass to count! :D
:~} grins to the counting grass theme
"Btw: After hearing some of the highlights on the radio so far, last night's Dem debate was every bit the snoozer as was forecasted w/ the exception of Robert Frankie O'rourke. I heard his feed. Three letters: LOL! It was a SNL skit!}
way back in the 80s or maybe 90s Austin Access Cable had the Libertarian Convention on live tv and I watched - in pretty disappointed disbelief of what i was seeing. There was one candidate that wasn't a total joke, the rest were - a couple even in ridiculous costumes. There were drug latent rants about the most irrelevant 'issues' by more than one of the 'candidates'. It prepeatedly reminded me of bad skits on late night tv -- back in the 70s. In the typical libertarian style it appeared to intended to throw a adolescent tantrum at the political system, all the while insisting on being taken seriously. ... and that's what I find myself thinking of every time i see O'rourke making a fool of himself on camera - which began when he was giving Cruz a run for his Senate seat. -- just the fact that he is being taken seriously one iota is a YUUUuuuge insult to the country's intelligence/culture.
" and that's what I find myself thinking of every time i see O'rourke making a fool of himself on camera - which began when he was giving Cruz a run for his Senate seat."
Cruz was my choice during the '16 primaries. His weakness was/is? that he didn't know how to connect w/ the voters at large. Though he is a brawler in the courtroom - he's not the streetfighter DT is. And there are thjngs DT has accomplished that I don't believe even Cruz would've done. Sad. If DT wins in 2020 or not, the dems will eventually have the WH. And I do believe that even those so called "Freedom Caucus " repubs that hate DT will be relieved. And the GOPers will be as complicit to the radicals as they were during BO's 8yrs. Dispite how far out the left has gone. The Pee-ons will say: "Hey, they won. Clearly it's what the voters wanted." It's what they said about the passage of O'care, remember? Enjoy these times, buddyboy. They will soon become the "Good ole days".
yep, i remember. excellently recalled and concisely too by you
"Cruz was my choice during the '16 primaries."
gotta be careful about that electing Texans for POTUS... hasn't worked out very well so far. :~}
over the years online i have expressed my belief that reviving rural America must be a priority in order to revive the dying founding core concepts of our country. That 85% and growing of our population living in large cities which indoctrinate socialism ensures those founding concepts cannot be significantly revived. Most everybody just shrugs off the thought seemingly thinking it isn't a realistic goal. Here's a guy talking about his company contributing to the revival of rural America in a practical common sense way;
It can be done, and must be done if saving this country's greatness is the goal. ...and then there's some residuals that he mentions, like not outsourcing jobs to foreign countries and further building and secureing our economy.
"Most everybody just shrugs off the thought seemingly thinking it isn't a realistic goal"
Very interesting point, Larry. Fact is that the majority had "shrugged their shoulders" about everything from the coming socialist insurrection - to the ecpnpmoc destruction of our nation because of govt run medical care as well as the social programs which SocSec eats up the lion's share of the yearly budget. As long as there were jobs the "ostriches" kept their heads under the ground (or up their own complacent rumps!).
Now the illegals invading our border is at tsunami levels. Yet the laws / policies that allow this invasion continue to remain in place. The more illegals that are allowed to enter...and STAY...the more our "founding" values are diluted down.
So between that and the OVERspending w/ SocSec; SSI and govt run medical care...which ALL the illegals ARE receiving - I give the country around 20yrs as a "free" republic.
And people...perhaps even here...will shrug their shoulders soe more over what I've just posted. ,
no shrugging by me... all are important points, residing within the 'natural law' type point that conditions(in this case bad laws, or too many laws, or unbridled lawmakers) for success largely determine the probability of success. as example... you just cannot be considered free when every aspect of life is legislated.
and competing for today's most nonsensical/bewildering news according to me;
FoxNation has touted a 'Patriot's Almanac' event for today's date to be the ratification of the 14th amendment to the constitution. ...it's far beyond my comprehension WTH is patriotic about the damned 14th amendment. It might be the most traitorous and destructive event in our country's history.
an excerpt from today's not healthcare specific news (bolded and underlined by me)
Several candidates said in the debates they wanted to abolish private health insurance, a shocker to those 140 million people who have such insurance. The private health insurance industry earns revenues of hundreds of billions of dollars and employs 600,000 Americans; Medicare-for-all amounts to a federal takeover of the means of production, which meets the definition of socialism.
somewhere, maybe on another forum, i have a long detailed discussion on the skyrocketing cost of healthcare being directly related to the rising % of our population utilizing comprehensive health insurance -- often referred to as '3rd party payer'. Boiled down what it amounts to is the more people participating in this 'everybody insured' health-care system the faster costs skyrocket. from that excerpt = just the fact that insurance companies have revenues of $100sBillions and employ 600,000 to add bureaucracy to healthcare guarantees skyrocketing healthcare costs. ..purty simple stuff, yet we as a country blindly continue down that idiot path.