Yes, it is your responsibility. You’re never going to get the last word in here, and trying to as you are trying to is disrespectful to the other Dopers in this thread.
Nope. It is not my responsibility. I am not being disrespectful either, I’ve simply tried to point out how the arguments of others are deeply disrespectful.
So how 'bout that racist scumbag JFK? What an evil scum he was for associating with racists, huh? Him and everyone who voted for him. And that goes for every Democratic office-holder and voter between 1865 and the end of the Civil Rights Era. All racists who are responsible for associating with racists. By your logic.
That isn’t an extreme list at all. Almost half the items on that list could better be called “populist” than extreme. Some of those points have been embraced by Obama.
What’s extreme about it?
How about this?
Black people don’t have a choice about being black, and it is certainly unfair to attribute characteristics to them based on their unchangeable membership in the group of black people.
OTOH, Republicans DO have a choice of remaining Republicans. They can, if they choose, remove themselves from membership and identity from an organization that has come to racism, sexism. and intolerance. Many have done so. Surely they are aware how many people perceive the party. If they choose to remain self-identifying as Republicans, then they tacitly accept the policies publicly espoused by the party.
I presume, based on your comments, that you would also defend individual members of the John Birch Society or the Nazi party from being tainted by their membership in those organizations. Is that correct?
I’ve already dealt with this objection, more than once, on this thread. Please see my questions about Muslims (which nobody has dared to answer) being blamed for terrorism, or my comment today about JFK and the racists that were once a substantial part of the Democratic Party.
Nobody else seems capable of answering the Muslim example - Muslims can choose whether to be Muslims, remember. I just posted the JFK example today. Care to comment on either?
Of course not. A member of the Nazi party is undeniably a Nazi. A member of the Republican party isn’t a racist just because some other Republican somewhere is a racist.
You weren’t asking me, but is it your opinion that anyone involved in an organization is responsible for all evils of that organization?
First of all, you’re wrong about the Republican party being racist, sexist and intolerant. But let’s assume for the sake of argument you’re right. It would still be possible for a person to be in the party and be attempting to change it from within and not be these things.
Was Oskar Shindler an evil person, just because he was a Nazi?
Everything.
1.*Identify constitutionality of every new law: Require each bill to identify the specific provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does (82.03%). *Juvenile. If only we had a brance of government that checked to see if legislation violates the Constitution… Oh, wait a minute!
2.*Reject emissions trading: Stop the “cap and trade” administrative approach used to control pollution by providing economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of pollutants. (72.20%). * Short sighted and bad for the environment. There is no intelligent debate, global warming is real and we must act.
3.Demand a balanced federal budget: Begin the Constitutional amendment process to require a balanced budget with a two-thirds majority needed for any tax modification. (69.69%) Retarded. Not one job will be created by balancing the budget. Requiring a supermajority for any increase in taxes is exponentially more retarded.
4.Simplify the tax system: Adopt a simple and fair single-rate tax system by scrapping the internal revenue code and replacing it with one that is no longer than 4,543 words – the length of the original Constitution. (64.9%)
Stupid and incorporates Founder Fetishism. A single-rate system would either be so high that the poor couldn’t afford it or so low that it wouldn’t generate adequate revenue. There’s a reason that civilized nations have graduated tax rates.
5.Audit federal government agencies for constitutionality: Create a Blue Ribbon taskforce that engages in an audit of federal agencies and programs, assessing their Constitutionality, and identifying duplication, waste, ineffectiveness, and agencies and programs better left for the states or local authorities. (63.37%) A waste of time. If only there was a way to challenge the constitutionality of federal agencies and programs… Oh wait a minute!
6.Limit annual growth in federal spending: Impose a statutory cap limiting the annual growth in total federal spending to the sum of the inflation rate plus the percentage of population growth. (56.57%). What do you do if there’s a war? What do you do if a depression requires a massive stimulus? There’s a reason that Hoover doesn’t appear on any currency
7.Repeal the health care legislation passed on March 23, 2010: Defund, repeal and replace the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. (56.39%). Hyperpartisan asshatery.
8.Pass an ‘All-of-the-Above’ Energy Policy: Authorize the exploration of additional energy reserves to reduce American dependence on foreign energy sources and reduce regulatory barriers to all other forms of energy creation. (55.5%). Why not just back up a Brinks truck to Fort Knox and let the energy companies take whatever they want?
9.Reduce Earmarks: Place a moratorium on all earmarks until the budget is balanced, and then require a 2/3 majority to pass any earmark. (55.47%).
Earmarks don’t amount to shit. John McCain was obsessed with them and look how his campaign took off.
10.Reduce Taxes: Permanently repeal all recent tax increases, and extend permanently the George W. Bush temporary reductions in income tax, capital gains tax and estate taxes, currently scheduled to end in 2011. (53.38%).
Completely retarded and in direct opposition to #3. The major reason for deficits to this very day remains the completely misguided Bush tax cuts.
Consider Lance’s response in the previous post. Lance would not defend a Nazi party member. So Lance does seem to recognize that there’s a line to be crossed between being an “innocent” member of an organization being a member of an organization whose policies are so virulent that maintaining membership in it constitutes tacit support of those policies.
So the question is where that line is drawn. And that depends upon just how wrong you believe the Republican party leadership to be.
I will admit that I think the Republican party has crossed that line. Lance apparently won’t, though he takes pains to not endorse any of the positions that many here feel are so vile.
So Lance – what would it take for the Republican Party to cross that line? Do they need to take power and open concentration camps? Or is their some lesser level of sins that would make even membership in the party inexcusable?
I note you didn’t mention Birch membership, which is admittedly more similar to Republican membership than Nazi membership.
Attn. everybody: let the dead horse get beaten someplace else. It’s time to take this side discussion to a new thread in Great Debates or the Pit.
Yes.
But this is not about the LEADERSHIP.
The claim being made here is that if there are other supporters of the party who are racist, that’s enough to make anyone who supports the party a racist! Even if the leadership isn’t racist!
Do you believe that?
For example, do you hold all Muslims responsible for the terrorism committed by some of them? Are all Muslims obligated to leave their religion because of terrorism committed in its name by a few?
I’ll respond to the rest of your post about leadership, but with the understanding that the above is what we’re talking about. Please respond to that.
So explain exactly how you think it has crossed that line. Make your case.
Well, for instance, if the GOP adopted an official platform plank that said that “racism is awesome, we hate blacks, let’s bring back segregation” or whatever, I think we agree that would cross the line. Obviously.
Can you find anything close to that?
Same applies. A member of the Birch Society is obviously a “bircher” who believes in it’s stated goals.
A mainstream political party, especially an American one, is a huge, amorphous group with a very broad diversity of opinions within it. You can’t compare that with specific groups like those.
Please be more specific.
Congress MUST decide whether legislation it passes conforms with the Constitution. It couldn’t do its job otherwise. Courts don’t do that unless someone sues over a law. Congress has just as important a responsibility in interpreting the Constitution as the courts - in fact, it has a much greater responsibility. It can’t just pass any law it wants and wait for someone to complain.
Requiring it to simply state the powers it’s using in each bill as a sort of preamble may be a bit silly and designed to pander to fools who claim Congress violates it regularly, but it’s hardly “extreme.”
If you define pandering to morons as not being extreme, then it would not be extreme. Requiring a constitutional reference to every law would be extreme and silly, in my opinion. “Let’s make an appropriation for hurricane relief…Oh, and let’s not forget to quote the Constitution.” How painfully moronic.
How on Earth can you find a reference to the Constitution in a bill passed by Congress, whose authority is derived from it and whose members swear to uphold it, “extreme?”
All it would be is something like this at the beginning of the bill:
“As authorized by Article I, Section 8 (or whatever) of the Constitution, the following appropriations are made…”
Hardly “extreme.”
But yes, it’s pandering to morons. On the other hand, those morons have tricked you into calling it “extreme” to state what part of the Constitution Congress is following when it passes a bill, which makes you the extreme one. Just call their bluff: say “sure, whatever” and move on.
Because the Constitution contemplates no such requirement. You will find no references to it in The Federalist or accounts of the Convention or anywhere else. It’s really not a terribly originalist idea.
Sure it’s extreme. It has the effect of slowing down the workings of Congress (though the Boehner House can hardly be slowed down any further) for no purpose. We have two parties and three branches of government. If something is passed of questionable constitutionality, we have a court. Whether or not the bill has language citing the Constitution isn’t going to prevent a court challenge if one is required.
This is extreme, much like spending millions on drug testing welfare recipients so that you can save a few thousand on welfare. Not to mention making little Johnny go hungry because his mom smoked a joint.
That hardly makes it “extreme” though. Congress does lots of things it’s not required by the Constitution to do, but thinks is a good idea.
No it wouldn’t. It would simply be a few extra words to type at the beginning of a bill.
Like I said, Congress MUST consider the Constitutionality of everything it does and every bill it passes. That’s part of its responsibility. It does so even without this requirement to state it in every bill (which is why it’s not really necessary to do so).
But this would cost nothing and place no extra burden on anyone. It’s a few words.
Furthermore, it is both proper and likely that the SCOTUS will rule a bill unconstitutional in terms of the authority-clauses invoked in the preamble but constitutional based on others not invoked, therefore constitutional. Something similar happened with the ACA. The important thing is that the attorneys arguing for its constitutionality are not limited to the clauses invoked, and there is no reason why they should be.