New Proof That Obama's Hawaiian Birth Certificate Was Faked + Links to Orly's Hearing

[Daylen]

I love these little comments that dismiss the necessity of the State to effect social changes. Do you think they would just miraculously appear? State sanctioned movement in either direction requires first the people, and then the conduit which is the State.

Only if the social change desired is one held by a small group and the rest of the people do not even like the premise of the change. Culture and society changes all the time without being forced to. Why even bother with a state and elections if its just to have some special interest group use the state enforce their own tyranny. We might as well go back to kings and queens; at least people understand in monarchies that the state does not have their interest at heart and sometimes heads must roll. Plus the "need" for social conservatives as a political position is evidence that society will and does change when not interfered with, and even when interfered with.

 

[jbone]

You birther idiots are still herping this? Geez, get a life, since it's obvious you are incapable of getting a clue.

And yes, at this point, anybody who still thinks Obama wasn't born in the US is an idiot. You sound like 9/11 truthers: unable to accept the fact that there is no grand conspiracy.

And the left attacks.

 

[beebobby]

I still think one of the GOTP candidates should make this a big issue in their campaign so that the birthers can find out how the vast majority of Americans feel about this. I don't think America will be with them on this point and it will be reflected how they do at the polls. They need to put this to bed and step away while they have any credibility left.

 

[Stanley]

And the left attacks.

Because anyone not fooled by these tactics are on the left?

I know just as many conservatives that echo Tawnos...


---
I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=38.919888,-77.154172

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

Only if the social change desired is one held by a small group and the rest of the people do not even like the premise of the change. Culture and society changes all the time without being forced to. Why even bother with a state and elections if its just to have some special interest group use the state enforce their own tyranny. We might as well go back to kings and queens; at least people understand in monarchies that the state does not have their interest at heart and sometimes heads must roll. Plus the "need" for social conservatives as a political position is evidence that society will and does change when not interfered with, and even when interfered with.

The latter portion of your post is interesting. So what you state is that either by social sanction (force) or by some natural social evolution that change does occur. So what makes one form of change any better than the other. One, by the State, mandates that change, and the other, well, it is a mandate of change through the State as well; they are both the same thing with the exception that the premise is derived from a Conservative position while the other is derived from a...Liberal, possibly?

Both sides of the political equation direct their energies toward Social Constructionist theories; it is from the premise of a Social Constructionist theory that each side begins to take flight from the other.

 

[Tawnos]

Because anyone not fooled by these tactics are on the left?

I know just as many conservatives that echo Tawnos...

People on the left call me a righty. People on the right call me a leftist. Used to it.

As for why both those on the left and right agree on this, it's likely a number of reasons.
For the left:
1) It's a distraction from the economy agenda
2) It appears to be little more than bitter attacks of the president because he's a c-c-c-combo breaker

For the right:
1) It's a distraction from an alternate economy agenda
2) It's a distraction from getting sane candidates in office
3) There's no evidence to support, and plenty to oppose, the various conspiracy theories

It's a losing proposition, on both sides of the aisle, for many reasons. Those who still buy it or are arguing in favor of it look quite crazy to the majority of us. Associating with those people could easily sink a candidate.

 

[Daylen]

The latter portion of your post is interesting. So what you state is that either by social sanction (force) or by some natural social evolution that change does occur. So what makes one form of change any better than the other. One, by the State, mandates that change, and the other, well, it is a mandate of change through the State as well; they are both the same thing with the exception that the premise is derived from a Conservative position while the other is derived from a...Liberal, possibly?

Both sides of the political equation direct their energies toward Social Constructionist theories; it is from the premise of a Social Constructionist theory that each side begins to take flight from the other.

Using the state one way or the other for social change would be Conservative or Liberal. Keeping the State small enough and not allowing laws that affect social structure would be libertarian; neither conservative nor liberal, classical liberal though. The libertarian approach is the best as it maximizes what people can do and only limits actions where they harm others. And don't give me that bs that a person not helping is harming. Coercion is more harm than any possible good that could come of it. Such "helpful" coercion is why the United Soviet Socialist Republic is no more, and nonintervention in economic and social matters is how USA went from frontier to Major Power.

 

[Grapeshot]

--snip--
Such "helpful" coercion is why the United Soviet Socialist Republic is no more, and nonintervention in economic and social matters is how USA went from frontier to Major Power.

USSR = Union of Socialist Republics.

 

[Daylen]

USSR = Union of Socialist Republics.

I stand corrected and a bit ashamed at that err, I should and do know better.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

Using the state one way or the other for social change would be Conservative or Liberal. Keeping the State small enough and not allowing laws that affect social structure would be libertarian; neither conservative nor liberal, classical liberal though. The libertarian approach is the best as it maximizes what people can do and only limits actions where they harm others. And don't give me that bs that a person not helping is harming. Coercion is more harm than any possible good that could come of it. Such "helpful" coercion is why the United Soviet Socialist Republic is no more, and nonintervention in economic and social matters is how USA went from frontier to Major Power.

The crux.

Do you have proof of this; that the United States became a major power because of nonintervention in economic and social issues?

You have quite a different take on historical matters than the United States Constitution--are you to argue that the Constitution does not deal with economic, and social issues?

I never have understood how a social contract--the Constitution is one--can be argued to be not-interventive.

 

[Daylen]

The crux.

Do you have proof of this; that the United States became a major power because of nonintervention in economic and social issues?

You have quite a different take on historical matters than the United States Constitution--are you to argue that the Constitution does not deal with economic, and social issues?

I never have understood how a social contract--the Constitution is one--can be argued to be not-interventive.

in the 1800s we had a laissez faire approach, ya know the time of the "robber barons" who brought goods to market so well they couldn't give away their fortune in their lifetimes. This is a matter of history, and this is when we became a major power, again a matter of history. Not superpower, just power, remember at the end of this era USA was able to extend its reach into blue water operations against other major powers successfully, such as Spain in the Spanish American war. The feds barely had any laws delving into the private activities of citizens back then. Also, drugs during this time were not prohibited much less regulated (I'd call that a big social issue). There were no laws mandating or prohibiting who could be hired or who could or must live where. To show why this is the cause of our prosperity, look at other similar regions such as mexico and South America. Those areas never grew like we did yet they were rife with the same potential, the difference, we had more liberty.

As far as the constitution as the social contract, perhaps non-intervention is wrong in the same way claiming libertarians are anarchists is wrong. Minimal intervention, and minimal limited government is all that is contained in the Constitution.