Newt cleans up in South Cackalacky.

[Jamisjockey]

More likely to come from Obama, that.  He's pretty much there already.

***

An aside about Ron Paul: too many of his supporters--I don't mean the people here--are young people who like getting high and have no interest in serving in the military.  It's not about idealism, it's about me-first.  Unfortunately, that kind of escapism, while certainly reflecting the peace and prosperity bubble of the last half-century that most younger people have enjoyed, doesn't conform well with what lies ahead.

What you really mean is that that level of personal freedom is just a little too much for your comfort?

[Jamisjockey]

Are we looking at a possible1933 redux then? I just get the creepiest feeling that Newt might end up trying to name himself  First Citizen of the Homeland or some such totalitarian entitlement.

"All hail First Citizen Newt!"

No kidding.....

[grampster]

I've said it before, ad nauseum, that it took nearly 70 years to get us where we are.  It cannot be fixed overnight.  But our country needs to shift back to the right slowly but surely.  As POTUS New would represent only 1 of 3 branches.  His appointment to the SCOTUS would be a counterbalance to the last two appointments and maybe even get the court to be impartial.  Obama has proven that the congress cannot be steam rolled.  Newt won't be able to do it either, but he would be a breath of fresh air as a historian rather than a dogma driven liberal.

He mentioned the other night that his candidate competition are good people and would be valuable additions to his administration.  That comment has not been a big news item, but he said it.

Face it, Newt is the only candidate that will pull us back from the brink.  White Shoe R's will broker someone if he doesn't get the nomination in the primaries and Mitt is a disaster.

[Fitz]

More likely to come from Obama, that.  He's pretty much there already.

***

An aside about Ron Paul: too many of his supporters--I don't mean the people here--are young people who like getting high and have no interest in serving in the military.  It's not about idealism, it's about me-first.  Unfortunately, that kind of escapism, while certainly reflecting the peace and prosperity bubble of the last half-century that most younger people have enjoyed, doesn't conform well with what lies ahead.

Pesky freedom. We should do more to get rid of that whole free will thing

[longeyes]

Pesky freedom. We should do more to get rid of that whole free will thing

I'm telling you what I've observed with a merciless and unsentimental eye.  Consumerism is not personal freedom.  Neither is self-exemption from life's duties.

You know who you are.  :)

[roo_ster]

Nazi Newt comparisons?  Really?

Some of y'all need to take a deep breath and step back from the keyboard before you use it to confirm Proverbs 29:11. (Or was that Proverbs 18:6?)

Snuggle with your dog, watch an episode of Touched by an Angel, read some Dr Seuss, or something; 'cause The Krayzee is getting a bit thick in here.

[Fitz]

No. I learned from the idiot box that anyone who opposes me is hitler.


See exhibit A

[MicroBalrog]

I'm telling you what I've observed with a merciless and unsentimental eye.  Consumerism is not personal freedom.

You know who you are.  :)

Or so you claim.


But more importantly: the legitimacy of the state is drawn from securing freedom.

[makattak]

Or so you claim.


But more importantly: the legitimacy of the state is drawn from securing freedom.

No. The legitimacy of the state is drawn from securing life, property, and liberty. In that order.

[MicroBalrog]

No. The legitimacy of the state is drawn from securing life, property, and liberty. In that order.

that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —

No liberty? No legitimacy.

[De Selby]

No. The legitimacy of the state is drawn from securing life, property, and liberty. In that order.

Uh, how did we figure that out?  And how twisted is that - as long as oppressive measures stop theft and rioting for example, they would be justified because liberty is second to property???

I suppose you would morally have had to side with King George - the revolution was certainly more destructive of property than abiding his restrictions on liberty would have been.

[RevDisk]

that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

English. It's right there in bloody plain English.  Governments derive their just powers (ie authority) from the consent of the governed.

[Perd Hapley]

So did someone say that they were against freedom or that liberty was not important or something?

[makattak]

Uh, how did we figure that out?  And how twisted is that - as long as oppressive measures stop theft and rioting for example, they would be justified because liberty is second to property???

I suppose you would morally have had to side with King George - the revolution was certainly more destructive of property than abiding his restrictions on liberty would have been.

You will note I mentioned three as necessary for a state to be just. My implication is that any state that does not secure life is unjust. A state that secure only life but not property is still unjust, but less so than one that does not even secure life. A state that secures life and property but not liberty is still unjust but less so than one that simply secures life. A state that secures all three is fulfilling its just purpose. Obviously there are varying amounts of how well life, property and liberty are secured, but without the first, the other two are useless. Without the second, the third is useless. That is the reason for their primacy over liberty.

[MicroBalrog]

The problem with this argument is that the three overlap very strongly.

Without a right to property a person does not truly have liberty, and without a right to individual liberty (i.e. among other things being secure in his home and doing with it as he wishes) he does not truly have property rights.

[Fitz]

I'd say they're kind of inseparable


edit: MB beat me to it

[longeyes]

The problem with this argument is that the three overlap very strongly.

Without a right to property a person does not truly have liberty, and without a right to individual liberty (i.e. among other things being secure in his home and doing with it as he wishes) he does not truly have property rights.

And without virtue and reason none of them can exist or matter much.  These are the values of a particular kind of human being.  The Founders made that point over and over.

[makattak]

The problem with this argument is that the three overlap very strongly.

Without a right to property a person does not truly have liberty, and without a right to individual liberty (i.e. among other things being secure in his home and doing with it as he wishes) he does not truly have property rights.

You can argue the second two overlap. I'm willing to concede that. The first, however, is preeminent.

And without virtue and reason none of them can exist or matter much.  These are the values of a particular kind of human being.  The Founders made that point over and over.

Without them, liberty cannot exist, but governments cannot secure virtue and reason. They can subvert them though, as the past 40 years illustrates well.

[cosine]

Maybe I take a simplistic view of the matter, but I've always thought that liberty isn't of much use to you if you aren't alive.

[zahc]

An aside about Ron Paul: too many of his supporters--I don't mean the people here--are young people who like getting high and have no interest in serving in the military.  It's not about idealism, it's about me-first.  Unfortunately, that kind of escapism, while certainly reflecting the peace and prosperity bubble of the last half-century that most younger people have enjoyed, doesn't conform well with what lies ahead.

So you are saying that young people, who are overwhelmingly those who are expected to fight, are not happy about serving in a military where military service is synonymous not with defending their homeland but with treking around splodystan causing carnage, creating enemies, and protecting interests of megacorporation and not necessarily the States' interests, for a Federal government which will jail them for using their drug of choice, and which steals their wealth, uses it to finance these wars, and gives a roughly equal amount of it to old people who don't even have to fight in the military, and that this ridiculous pro-freedom, pro-American, indeed, pro-self-preservation position accounts for their support of Ron Paul?

Yeah, I would say that's about right.

[Fitz]

lol.

That's about the short and skinny of it

[longeyes]

So you are saying that young people, who are overwhelmingly those who are expected to fight, are not happy about serving in a military where military service is synonymous not with defending their homeland but with treking around splodystan causing carnage, creating enemies, and protecting interests of megacorporation and not necessarily the States' interests, for a Federal government which will jail them for using their drug of choice, and which steals their wealth, uses it to finance these wars, and gives a roughly equal amount of it to old people who don't even have to fight in the military, and that this ridiculous pro-freedom, pro-American, indeed, pro-self-preservation position accounts for their support of Ron Paul?

Yeah, I would say that's about right.

If you construe what I'm saying as a defense of ill-chosen and ill-strategized wars, you are quite mistaken.  Far from it. 

But I'm sorry if I don't buy that the support for Ron Paul among "the young" is based on idealism rather than, largely, on selfishness and hedonism.  Young people today are the willing beneficiaries of all the "sins" of their elders.  I see very few doing without the boons of the previous generations.  As for fighting, their time will come, whether they like it or not; that is the legacy of human history.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

oh sweet jeebus.  i find myself in the curious position of agreeing with longeyes  i read it twice looking for a loophole too.  he sank the hook with these words "selfishness and hedonism. "

[Tallpine]

deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

I do not consent anymore.  Now what? 

[Fitz]

I do not consent anymore.  Now what? 

You're a violent extremist, naturally